1951-11-26

[Stage Direction]
Canada's contribution to European defence
-REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I must refer once again to the matter of privilege raised by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on Wednesday last with respect to the report of a statement attributed in press dispatches to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) at Rotterdam. Today the Montreal Gazette publishes on its first page the following explanation:
No cost figure set by Claxton. $100 million for Europe 'dromes based on estimates.
Toronto, November 25, C.P.:	The $100 million
attributed to Defence Minister Claxton in a Canadian Press story from Rotterdam November 21, as the cost of airfields in western Europe, was an estimate made by Douglas How, C.P. staff correspondent. It was based, How says, on statements by Mr. Claxton in the past that a modern airfield cost $20 million or more. No specific figure was mentioned by Mr. Claxton at Rotterdam. How's original cable from Rotterdam read:
"Claxton announced Canada foot bill for four or five new airdromes-likely to cost in vicinity of $100 million-in western Europe to field eleven squadron jet air division which capable providing tactical support for full-fledged army."
Then there are parentheses, and it reads:
(It then went into Mr. Claxton's references to Canada sending arms for more European divisions, and other matters.)
As extended and backgrounded by the Canadian Press cable desk for publication the dispatch ascribed the figures between dashes to the minister as follows:
"Rotterdam, The Netherlands, November 21, C.P. -Brooke Claxton announced today that Canada will foot the bill for four or five new airdromes in western Europe to field an eleven squadron jet air division capable of providing tactical support for a full-fledged army . . .
There are three or four points of suspension, then it goes on:
"The airdromes, he said, will cost in the vicinity of $100 million."
When this story, among others, became a focal point of controversy in the House of Commons, How was messaged by his head office for confirmation of the announcement that Canada would foot the bill for the airdromes, and for clarification as to whether the estimate of cost was his own or the minister's.
He replied that according to his recollection the defence minister, in answer to a direct question, left no doubt that in the long run in one way or another, Canada would pay for the airfields in question. But that the $100 million figure was his own estimate, based on previous statements by the minister as to the cost of airfields.
Perhaps the lesson from this might be that at times statements, even by ministers of the crown as to what they have said or have not said, might be regarded as apt to be as reliable as the expanded or backgrounded reports published by news agencies.
In that connection the same issue of the Montreal Gazette has as its lead editorial one entitled, "Parliament's servant, even in Holland". The first paragraph reads:
The Claxton incident ought not to be exaggerated. Everybody makes mistakes-sometimes bad ones. But the whole matter could have been much better settled if the errors were admitted, with a reasonable expression of regret.
Well, I suppose we can take it that the Gazette's error is sufficiently admitted by the publication in the same issue of the article which I have just read. As to whether or not the writer of that article will see fit to make any expression of regret is a matter for himself to decide.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: We are, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the reports of very reliable press agencies, and I would point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has completely failed to deal with the fundamental issue raised both by the editorial in the Gazette to which he has referred and the report which has been issued by the Canadian Press after checking with their reporter, Mr. How. The fact is, in so far as the question of policy is concerned, it does not make any difference whether the amount involved is $1 million, $100 million, or $500 million. From a careful reading of the Canadian Press dispatch to which the Prime Minister has referred, it is quite clear that the report stands except for the figure. This is a financial detail, and a very important one, but the question of policy is whether or not a decision that Canada is to foot the bill for airfields-and may I add for barracks which were not mentioned by the Prime Minister-is to be presented to this house for consideration, or whether the hon. members of this house and the people of Canada are to learn about it for the first time through a statement made in Rotterdam or anywhere else outside of Canada.
When this statement was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister last Wednesday, he did not leave any doubt about his

North Atlantic Treaty own position and the position of the government. These are his words as reported in Hansard at page 1223:
... no such policy has been decided upon by the Canadian government.
The money, vitally important though that is, is' not the question of policy. The Prime Minister told us last Wednesday that no such policy had been decided upon by the government. The statement as checked, revised and printea today as coming from the Canadian Press headquarters in Toronto leaves the statement of policy precisely where it was last Wednesday. I return also to the question of the barracks, because the Prime Minister either has overlooked that subject or has avoided it. The members of this house will recall that from The Hague, the night before the announcement in Rotterdam, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had announced that Canada was going to build barracks near Soest in Germany at a cost of between $5 million and $10 million, and that those barracks would be built by Germans, with the construction starting within a few months.
A new and interesting angle in connection with this matter arose as a result of another Canadian Press dispatch on Saturday-a dispatch published since this1 house last met- in which it was stated that Canadians have luxury barracks which were built during the Hitler regime. Mr. Speaker, if Canadians now have luxury barracks which were built by Hitler, I should think it would be a good thing if we continued to use those barracks. I cannot imagine a better purpose to which those barracks, originally built for the nazis, could be put than that of housing Canadians. In any event, we have as yet had no suggestion that the Minister of National Defence's statement at The Hague was not correctly reported. We are therefore still left with the statement that Canada is going to build barracks in Germany at a cost of between $5 million and $10 million.
May I repeat what was said before. I do not think anyone in this house is raising any question about our fulfilment of any obligations which we properly share as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Hut surely there are questions to discuss as to whether it is not appropriate that the contribution of some of these European nations might well be the construction of barracks or the building of airfields while we are supplying arms on a divisional scale; according to another announcement made by the Minister of National Defence, our undertaking was to complete the delivery of arms for four divisions. Surely those are questions of policy


which are not affected in principle by the amount involved.
I think the explanation given by the Canadian Press as to the way in which Mr. Douglas How arrived at the figure of $100 million is one that to most members of this house would seem to be perfectly reasonable, they being well aware of the manner in which press reports are prepared and, may I also say, well aware of the manner in which the government at times gives information to the press outside of the regular conferences. In. any event, the statement as originally raised stands, and I suggest that what has been stated by the Prime Minister and what was left unsaid about the barracks leaves this house still with no satisfactory explanation of why these policies were not announced here and why we should be left to leam of them through the press.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the leader of the opposition is entitled to get as much consolation as he can about what he has referred to in his last remarks. But I am willing now to leave the matter on the record as it stands in Hansard. It will be remembered that the statement which was referred to about the barracks was this:
. . . the minister said the barracks will be built by Germans, the work to start in the next few months and be completed late next year.
That is no announcement of government policy, because it is not the policy of this government to announce what is going to be done by Germans.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fraser:: That is a poor one.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is sufficient for us to announce to parliament what the plans of the government are. That has been done and it will continue to be done.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the Prime Minister's remarks that the Minister of National Defence was speaking on behalf of the Germans when he made that statement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member can "expand and background" the statements as he sees fit; and I hope that he will not be any less successful than the Canadian Press.



KURT MEYER


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to learn that this is another question of privilege that I propose to raise. On October 19 last the

Minister of National Defence was asked to make a statement with regard to the status of Kurt Meyer, and he did so on October 22, as reported at page 245 of Hansard. After explaining that Kurt Meyer was being committed to Werl prison in Germany, a prison which he designated as a Canadian service prison, he went on, to say:
The answer is that Meyer is still under the control and jurisdiction of Canada.
Today we read in a Canadian Press dispatch that when, a representative of the Canadian Press called at Kurt Meyer's house on Saturday, with the expectation of seeing Mrs. Meyer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the representative of the Canadian Press assumed that the report would be taken with sufficient seriousness that he did not find it necessary to give any other explanation of the fact that he was calling at Kurt Meyer's house, expecting to see Mrs. Kurt Meyer and to obtain from her information about her husband. He found Kurt Meyer playing with his children, explaining that he had been released from prison under an arrangement whereby the prisoners at that particular prison camp are permitted to visit their homes. Remembering that this prisoner is under Canadian jurisdiction, the question arises as to whether the Canadian government has given authority to Kurt Meyer to visit his home at regular intervals in this way.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understood that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence had inquired into this matter and had an answer prepared.


Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Kurt Meyer was transferred to a British prison at Werl in Germany-a prison which is operated for the punishment of war criminals convicted by Great Britain. While he was so transferred' for purposes of incarceration,, as the Minister of National Defence said at page 245 of Hansard, he remains under the control of the government of this country so far as sentence is concerned, and any release-that is, permanent release-would be within the jurisdiction of this government.
It is provided by section 178 of the National Defence Act that the minister may designate any prison as a service prison. As announced by the minister in the house on October 22, he so designated Werl prison as a service prison. Order in council P.C. 5596, dated October 18, 1951, was also tabled on October
Kurt Meyer
22, setting out the regulations that govern prisoners in service prisons. Section 2 of those regulations specifically provides that a prisoner who is undergoing punishment in a place designated as a service prison under the National Defence Act shall be dealt with in the same manner as other prisoners in that place, and all the rules applicable to such other prisoners shall, in so far as circumstances permit, apply to him.
The regulations governing the operation of the prison at Werl are within the jurisdiction of the British authorities, and it is presumed that all prisoners there are subject to the same regulations as provided in the order in council to which I have referred.
We have made inquiries as to the specific rules dealing with the point raised by the leader of the opposition and have not yet received information as to what the rules in the British prison are. As soon as we have that information we will give it.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that the circumstances under which General Kurt Meyer came under the control of the Canadian government are very harrowing indeed to a number of Canadian families, and they affect the sentiments of a great number of Canadians in regard to the conduct of those responsible for military action. Kurt Meyer was found guilty of the responsibility for the death of certain Canadians. Either he was guilty or he was not. If he was guilty there was a form of punishment provided. If he was not guilty he should be freed. I submit further, Mr. Speaker, that there should be no intermediate stage. I do submit that it is a very surprising thing to be informed now that although the government has full responsibility for Kurt Meyer, whom they arranged to send to Germany, they have sent him to a prison whose rules they do not know. Judging from the answer that has been given, if these rules should provide that a prisoner be absent from the prison for six months, there would be no reason why it would not apply in this case. I would assume also that if the British authorities decided to extend that privilege to General Manstein and other prisoners, including General Kesselning-General Manstein and General Kesselring occupy cells on both sides of General Kurt Meyer

under the explanation that has been given, it would apply to General Kurt Meyer as well.
This is not something that is being raised by way of simply seeking to provoke a discussion. It is a matter of very deep and grave concern to all Canadians. This goes to the conduct of the military forces with which we were engaged in the war. Most certainly, if there was one man above

Kurt Meyer
all others who should be under appropriate restraint for life-if that is the penalty-it is the man who was responsible for the death of young Canadians, and most certainly there should be no easy treatment for a man who is guilty of that offence, and guilty under the circumstances that were accepted as evidence at the trial. I can only repeat that what has happened now suggests that the house should have been informed before Kurt Meyer left Canada; but in any event, the government should have been informed as to the regulations at Werl prison before Kurt Meyer was sent there. I suggest now that this whole case be reviewed. Either Kurt Meyer is guilty or he is not. If he is guilty he should receive the punishment that goes with guilt of this kind. If he is not guilty, he should be freed.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: May I ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant? As an old veteran I do not need any assistance from Winnipeg. I feel keenly about this. If, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said, this man as a soldier was found guilty by the courts of the land, as we presume he was, of murdering Canadians, then by no stretch of the imagination, so far as I am concerned, should he be permitted to spend a week end visiting his wife, anybody else's wife, or anyone else. I should like to ask a question through you, Mr. Speaker. We have never yet been definitely assured of what has happened to the man who wrote "Mein Kampf", who caused ruin to this whole world. If he should turn up now, is he to be permitted to visit the little lady friend he had, for a week end or two? I want to know definitely. I feel very keenly about this. Either this man is guilty or he is not.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If he is guilty, as I understand he was so found by courts set up under international law, then I should like any veteran member of this House of Commons or any member of the Legion to rise in his place and apologize or approve of some reason why this man should have a week end of leisure at home or anywhere else. The courts of the land have convicted this man of murdering young Canadian soldiers. I do not approve of it. I do not know just how strongly to put it, Mr. Speaker, but as a veteran I think it is a blot on the law of Canada and on international law that this should be permitted, that this rat should be permitted to go home for a week end, when at least 19 Canadian mothers are mourning the death of their sons who were murdered.


Mr. Pouliot:: All that has been said-


Mr. Ferguson:: This German general was-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the house desires to debate this subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Speaker, I am speak-about a different matter.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I intend to speak about it, definitely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house. It is not customary to debate a question of privilege. I realize this is an unusual session. We do not have a committee of ways and means and a committee of supply, and it is for that reason that I have allowed a certain amount of latitude. There have been several speeches on the question raised by the leader of the opposition. I do not know whether the house wants to continue that subject.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I will not mention names, but I say that every member in the House of Commons does have a right to voice his opinion about a gentleman from an enemy country who is found guilty of committing acts-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Instead of being shot he was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the people of this country, the people of Canada, thought that this man was going to serve the sentence given to him by a just court composed of those who know what war is, and who know that these Canadians were young boys who were probably taken because of lack of ammunition. Then they were taken prisoner and were murdered by a man-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -who was given a sentence that the people of Canada did not believe was quite good enough. But when they were told he was going to be given life imprisonment they did not believe that that life imprisonment meant freedom. They will judge this government by their actions in this case. It is a crime and it is a slur on the people of Canada who fought in the last war-to think that our government would permit this to happen.



PRIVILEGE, MR. POULIOT    TRANSLATION OF SPEECHES

Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. All that has been said about Kurt Meyer was out of

order. I am not to speak about it; I rise on a question of privilege. I rise on a question of privilege which concerns me and also other members of the house who look at the translations of their speeches.
There are two official languages in this country; but I have discovered that for a long time there has been a third one, the language of bureaucracy. Twenty-five or twenty-six years ago I put a question on the order paper to find out who was the man who had translated such-and-such a speech in Hansard. It created a commotion in bureaucratic circles. When I got the answer, the name of one of them was a translator who, instead of doing his work, was canvassing members for General de Gaulle at the time. He was a very busy gentleman.
What I complain about is that the language of bureaucracy is not understood by the people. When we have a translation from English into the language of bureaucracy, nobody understands it; and it is so bad that I cannot send speeches to the local weeklies to be reprinted, because nobody would understand them.
I will give the example I gave twenty-five years ago. There has been no progress since, because the strength of bureaucracy is the force of inertia. When I say the constituents of my county, or my constituency, I mean in French "Les electeurs de mon comte". Everybody uses that language from coast to coast, when one speaks in French. Instead of that, they have persisted in publishing, time and time again, instead of "les electeurs de mon comte" the words "les commettants de ma ciroonscription".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: You laugh, Mr. Speaker; it is ridiculous. But, for their punishment, I shall ask again: Who first translated two or three little speeches which I made in English since the beginning of this session? I did not take much time. I wish my speeches to be translated in the French language, in the French that is spoken-good Canadian French, and Canadian language, which is used from coast to coast.
And I will tell you, some time, a little more about the translators who are busy distorting our language in the French edition of Hansard.



RAILWAY LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the special committee on railway legislation.-Mr. McCulloch (for Mr. Cleaver).
Questions QUESTIONS


Mr. Lennard:: What effect has the Gut dam at the easterly end of lake Ontario on the water levels of that lake?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I request that this question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



STRATEGIC MATERIALS


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in cases where for war purposes we shorten the supply of materials and the remainder is insufficient for domestic supplies, taken steps to fix prices on materials for domestic use and arrange distribution?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: For such materials as are in short supply, by reason of excessive demands to meet defence requirements, the government has appointed controllers to take charge of the distribution and no price increase for these materials can be made without prior approval being obtained from the controller. This applies particularly to steel, non-ferrous metals, sulphur and certain chemicals, at the present time.



CANADIAN WAR CLAIMS COMMISSION


Mr. Fulion:: 1.	Who are the personnel of the Canadian war claims commission, and what are their respective salaries?
2.	What clerical and other staff does the commission have, and what are the total salaries for this staff?
3.	What is the total number of claims from Canadians which the commission has under consideration?
4.	Of these, how many are claims from Canadians who were imprisoned or interned by the Japanese?
5.	Of the claims covered in part 4, when was the first one received?
6.	Have any of these claims yet been paid?
7.	What is the total of such claims?
8.	What is the total of Japanese assets in the hands of the commission or of the custodian for distribution?
9.	Have any interim payments been made on any of the claims?
10.	If not, for what reason?
11.	Have any Canadians been paid any money for the period during which they were interned or imprisoned?
12.	Has the Canadian government done anything for returned Canadian civilian prisoners of the Japanese beyond arranging for their return to Canada?


Mr. Bradley:: 1.	Commissioner: Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, appointed by order in council of July 31, 1951, as an advisory commissioner on the method of dealing with war claims. No compensation.

Questions
2.	Technical adviser: H. Carl Goldenberg, barrister, as and when services are required. Compensation $150 for each day during which he is s<o occupied. 1 secretary: Mrs. N. M. Haynes; salary: $200 per month.
3.	The commissioner is acting in an advisory capacity only and will not make recommendations or awards on individual claims. The commissioner will recommend to the government which classes of claims should be paid in full, which in part only and which, if any, should be disallowed. Claims from approximately 4,000 Canadians have been received by the war claims branch of the custodian's office.
4.	Claims have been submitted to the war claims branch on behalf of approximately 1,750 former prisoners of war of the Japanese and on behalf of approximately 125 former civilian internees or detainees of the Japanese.
5.	December, 1943.
6.	No.
7.	Claims submitted on behalf of former prisoners of war of the Japanese total approximately $2 million, computed at the rate of $1 a day for every day of imprisonment; claims submitted on behalf of former civilian internees' or detainees of the Japaneise total approximately $625,000.
8.	There are no Japanese assets in the hands of the commissioner. The custodian has under control approximately $3,425,000 of assets which formerly were owned by Japanese enemies. When the treaty of peace is ratified such assets will be at the disposal of the Canadian government.
9.	None other than the following: (a) a few officers or employees of the government of Canada received compensation from the government in respect of loss of belongings incurred upon leaving their posts; and (b) a few Canadians were compensated by the governments of two or three Far Eastern countries under local schemes in respect of property losses.
10.	There is no authority to make interim payments but this matter is under active consideration.
11.	Former civilian internees or detainees have received nothing. Former prisoners of war were credited with their pay while imprisoned and in appropriate cases have received pensions if disabled as a result of imprisonment.
13. No, except that in some of the cases mentioned in (a) and (b) of No. 9 above the claimants so compensated may have been interned by the Japanese.



DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION


Mr. Hellyer:: 1.	What defence construction projects are held up by material shortages?
2.	In each case, what are the specific materials and quantities that are not available?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	In carrying out the defence construction program, there have been a number of difficulties due to material shortages, resulting in delays in getting materials to the different sites as rapidly as might have been desired. However, as a result of government action and the co-operation of industry, there are only three cases where work is not proceeding because of material shortages.
2.	The following defence construction projects are not proceeding because of material shortages:	(i) Construction of RCEME
workshop for the army at Long Branch, Ontario. This project requires 224 tons of structural steel ordered on American mills. Delivery to the Canadian fabricator was set back from September to November due to changes in the American controlled material plan regulations. Fifty per cent of the requirement has now arrived at the fabricator's shop and is being fabricated. Present plans call for erection at the site to commence December 10. (ii) Chemical laboratory for the defence research board at Shirley's Bay, Ontario. This project requires 160 tons of structural steel. Originally an effort was made to place this order on an American mill but due to delays arising out of the controlled material plan regulations, the order was subsequently placed on a Canadian mill. Twenty-five tons have been delivered to the fabricator and the balance is to be delivered before December 31. Present undertaking of the fabricator is that erection will start not later than February 1, 1952. (iii) Construction of 250-man barrack block for the R.C.A.F. at Centralia, Ontario. This project requires 137 tons of structural steel ordered on American mills. Delivery to the Canadian fabricator was scheduled for October but was received in October and November. The delay arose due to changes in the American controlled material plan regulations. Fabrication is now being completed and erection at the site is to commence during the week of November 26.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Gillis:: 1.	How many offices does the Department of National Revenue occupy in the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia?

2.	Are these offices owned by the government, rented or leased?
3.	If rented or leased, from whom?
4.	What rental is paid per year?
5.	Does the rental paid include heating, lighting and janitor service?
6.	If so, what amount of the rental is allocated for such services?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Two.
2.	One office, which is occupied by the customs division, is located in the public building, and the other, which is occupied by the income tax division, is in a rented building.
3.	Joseph G. Azar.
4.	$20,448.77.
5.	The rental includes heating and janitor service, but not lighting.
6.	No information.



NATURAL GAS AND OIL PIPE LINES-INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has there been made by any branch or department of the federal government an investigation or study of the whole question of natural gas and/or oil pipe lines, including any or all aspects of the question?
2.	If so, has such investigation or study resulted in the preparation of a report thereon?
3.	If there is such a report, is it available to members of parliament and to the public?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A confidential report on the crude petroleum industry, dated July, 1950 and one on the natural gas industry, dated May, 1951, were prepared for use by the government.
3.	These reports are confidential, prepared by government employees for government use and therefore not available for general distribution.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Churchill:: 1.	How many hostels are there to deal with arriving immigrants, and where are they located?
2.	What is the cost per person per day of maintaining immigrants in these hostels (a) when maintained by the Department of Labour; (b) when maintained1 by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	(a) The Department of Labour operates two hostels for the reception of immigrant workers, one located at St. Paul l'Ermite, Quebec, and one at Ajax, Ontario, (b) The Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Questions
maintains eight buildings in which immigrants may be housed and fed. These buildings are located, in Halifax, Saint John, N.B., Quebec, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Victoria.
2.	(a) The average cost per person per day of maintaining immigrants at Department of Labour hostels is $2.88, which includes rent, salaries, services, food, and other supplies and depreciation, (b) The cost of maintaining immigrants in buildings operated by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is approximately $2.50 per person per day. This includes food, salaries of catering staff, light, heat, laundry, and small items of kitchenware.




Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Is there a shortage of shipping for (a) British immigrants; (b) other immigrants, by countries?
2.	Is British immigration being held back by shortage of shipping?
3.	If so, what is the order of priority, if any, allowing British immigrants to come forward as among different categories?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. All European countries, in varying degrees, with the exception of Mediterranean countries.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	The Canadian government does not control the booking of passage by private companies. The booking of passage is handled by the transportation companies.



NORTH RUSTICO BAY, P.E.I.    CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HARBOUR

Mr. McLure:: 1.	Were tenders called for the building of the boat harbour at North Rustico bay?
2.	If not, will this work be completed by day's labour?
3.	Will this boat harbour or boat protection be built in one place, or will it accommodate fishermen at the north end of bay as well as south?
4.	What is the estimated amount for this work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes, a contract was awarded for repairs to the breakwater at an estimated cost of $19,483.50.
2.	Further repairs to the breakwater, estimated to cost $4,900 are being performed by day labour. Repairs to the North Rustico wharf, estimated to cost $2,500, have also been authorized.
3.	The breakwater is maintained for protection of the harbour entrance as well as for protection of fishing establishments in its

Questions
vicinity. The wharf is maintained for the accommodation of boats in the vicinity of North Rustico village.
4.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Has the practice of providing temporary loans to European immigrants, in order that they might get passage to Canada, been discontinued?
2.	If so, when was this done, and for what reason?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1 and 2. The issue of travel warrants undier the assisted passage loan scheme was suspended on October 11, 1951, because the total revolving fund had been committed at that time.



FLOOD PREVENTION


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received, since January 1, 1951, representations urging prompt completion of protective studies with reference to long-range protective measures against future floods in the watershed which includes the Red, Assiniboine and Pembina rivers, so that any comprehensive plan based thereon may be established at an early date?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	What progress is being made in connection with the completion of these studies?
4.	Have these studies been advanced to the point where the type of plans to be based thereon can be indicated?
5.	Can the government give any other information concerning progress in connection with these long-range protective measures against future floods in the Red river area?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The council of the Winnipeg chamber of commerce.
3.	Field investigations and office studies are going forward with the objective of completing a report at as early a date as possible.
4.	No.
5.	Good progress is being made in the accumulation and analysis of pertinent data from topographic, hydrographic and bathymetric surveys, soil examination, diamond drilling and so forth.



VETERANS-MEDICAL TREATMENT-DEDUCTION OF PENSION PAYMENTS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many veterans, suffering from tuberculosis and accepted as the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs, are receiving medical treatment in sanatoria or other hospitals in Canada?
[Mr. Fournier (Hull) .1
2.	In provinces in which free treatment is given, does the Department of Veterans Affairs deduct any portion of the payment of pension to cover payment for treatment?
3.	If so, has consideration been given to discontinuing doing so?


Mr. Mulch:: Return at November 13, 1951:
1.	1,070.
2.	No. A pensioner, however, under treatment as a responsibility of the department in a sanatorium or other hospital for his pensioned condition "tuberculosis", receives while in hospital, in the form of pension or treatment allowances, the equivalent of a 100 per cent pension less $15 a month. The $15 a month is deducted because he is not under expense for food and lodging.
3.	Answered by No. 2. The matter has been under consideration.



UNITED STATES TARIFF ON FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM CANADA

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Is the government aware of any investigation being made by the United States tariff commission into the tariff on frozen fillets of cod and haddock entering the United States?
2.	Under our trade agreements with the United States are Canadian producers protected against increases in the United States tariff on these items?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes. According to available information, a request has been made to the United States tariff commission to investigate the need for increased tariff protection for groundfish fillets produced in the United States. As a result of such an investigation, the tariff commission may, in certain circumstances, recommend to the President of the United States an increase in the tariff rate which is involved. Under United States law, it is understood that such a recommendation cannot be made unless it is found that increased imports are the cause or the threat of serious injury to a domestic industry, nor unless it is found, further, that these increased imports are the result of a tariff concession negotiated by the United States under a trade agreement. The tariff rate on frozen fillets of cod and haddock entering the United States is contractually bound against increase in the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is the operative trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
2.	Under this agreement, it would not be permissible for the United States government to increase the tariff in question unless it could be shown that groundfish fillets are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like

products and, further, unless it could be shown that the increased imports are the result of unforeseen developments and the result, also, of the tariff concession under the agreement. Even if the United States government should decide, as a result of a recommendation by the United States tariff commission, to increase the tariff rate in question, the Canadian government would have the right, under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to be consulted on all aspects of such proposed action.



CATTLE, ETC.  NUMBER IN CANADA    EXPORTS TO U.S.A.

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the number of (a) milk cows; (b) cattle; (c) pigs: (d) sheep, by provinces, in each of the years 1941 and 1951?
2.	How many (a) milk cows; (b) cattle, were exported to the United States in the year 1950, and to date, during each month in 1951?
Questions


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	See statement following.
2.	Canadian exports of milk cows and
cattle to the United	States:	Cattle,	Milk	Pure	Cattle,Cows	Bred	OtherNo.	No.	No.1950-Calendar year	47,043	22,726	386,9491951-January ....	2,927	1,084	18,372February ...	3,948	1,427	15,361March 	3,979	1,702	21,530April 	3,057	2,242	18,780May 	3,940	1,847	19,078June	3,393	1,565	13,317July 	3,732	1,490	6,666August 	3,031	1,575	10,835September ..	2,945	2,161	15,149October 	2,799	1,492	18,365
Number of Specified Live Stock on Farms in Canada, by Provinces, 1941 and 1951
-	Milk Cows1	Cattle2	Pigs	Sheep3Canada (excluding Newfoundland)	1941	3,626,025	4,890,982	6,081,389	2,839,9481951	3,541,700	5,791,600	5,875,000	1,968,100Prince Edward Island	1941	46,404	47,973	48,205	44,2691951	43,600	57,800	76,000	48,000Nova Scotia	1941	108,130	96,764	44,303	138,2091951	98,000	104,000	62,000	127,300New Brunswick	1941	114,764	92,229	68,018	92,5561951	102,000	101,000	92,000	71,400Quebec	1941	1,000,795	756,392	808,017	526,0871951	1,129,500	908,800	1,439,000	377,800Ontario	1941	1,155,849	1,483,639	1,882,012	661,7751951	1,204,400	1,807,500	2,150,000	475,400Manitoba	1941	306,294	399,043	503,407	246,1691951	236,800	470,500	346,000	112,400Saskatchewan	1941	437,674	803,471	943,711	330,0341951	339,000	898,000	607,000	236,200Alberta	1941	363,626	978,504	1,705,528	674,9181951	292,400	1,190,000	1,038,000	416,600British Columbia	1941	92,489	232,967	78,188	125,9311951	96,000	254,000	65,000	103,000
* Cows and heifers 2 years old and over kept mainly for milk purposes.
2	All other cattle and calves.
3	Sheep and lambs.
Note: The 1941 figures are from the 1941 census. The 1951 figures are estimates derived from the June 1, 1951 sample survey of live stock on farms.
The October 1, 1945 census of live stock in Newfoundland reported 14,455 milk cows and heifers; 8,489 other cattle; 85,802 sheep; and 11,443 swine.
1308

Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS



EMPLOYEES AT HEAD OF LAKES ENGAGED IN LOADING AND UNLOADING

Mr. Winkler:: 1.	How many employees at the head of the lakes are engaged in unloading grain cars, and loading vessels?
2.	How many of these are in the employment of (a) companies; (b) the government?
3.	By years since 1935, how much overtime per man was paid in the rush season?
4.	What has been the wage rate and overtime rate Since 1935?
5.	When were these men so engaged organized into a union?



ASSISTANCE TO OTHER COUNTRIES


Mr. Argue:: What was the quantity and value, in each month, of wheat, other grains, livestock, agricultural machinery, industrial machinery and any other commodities made available to (a) each country under the Colombo plan, since its inception; (b) any other country, by way of economic assistance, during the past eighteen months?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Churchill:: 1.	How many immigrants have entered Canada since January 1, 1951?
2.	From what countries have they come?
3.	What is their racial origin?



LEASES ON BLOOD INDIAN RESERVATION

Mr. Shaw:: 1.	How many white farmers are now leaseholders on the Blood Indian reservation?
2.	What is the name and address of each leaseholder, and upon what date did he acquire his lease?
3.	Under what terms and conditions was each lease awarded, and what is the duration of each lease?
4.	What method is employed in determining who shall be granted leases on the said reservation?



RENTS FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION IN CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	What is the total of all rents paid by the federal government for accommodation in the city of Charlottetown from March 31, 1945, until March 31, 1951?
2.	To what landlords were these rents paid?
3.	What was the amount paid to each?



RENTAL OF PREMISES FROM MAURICE POLLACK, QUEBEC CITY

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Has any department or crown company rented premises in Quebec city, from Maurice Pollack of that city?
2.	H so, what premises were so rented, and upon what terms?



PURCHASES FROM WAR ASSETS AND CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATIONS BY VARIOUS COMPANIES  CONTRACTS

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Did any of the following companies, namely (a) Maurice Pollack Realty Company Limited, 59 St. Joseph, Quebec; (b) Maurice Pollack Limited. 75 St. Joseph, Quebec; (c) Pollack's Limitee Inc.; (d) Master Craft Uniform Company Reg'd., 59 St. Joseph, Quebec; (e) Pollack & Dorman; (f) Rifka Inc., 51 St. Jean, Quebec, purchase materials from War Assets Corporation or Crown Assets Disposal Corporation since 1945?
2.	If so, which of the said companies, what were the materials purchased in each case and by what department or crown company were the respective materials turned over to War Assets Corporation or Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
3.	Have any of the above mentioned companies obtained any contracts from any department or crown company since March 31, 1949?
4.	If so, from what departments and/or crown corporations, and what were the amounts in each case?



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Wright:: 1.	Since April 1, 1951, have any new positions been created or old positions reclassified in the office of the deputy minister. Department of National Defence? H so, which of these positions were filled (a) by advertising or open competition through the civil service commission; (b) by promotion of civil servants within the Department of National Defence; (c) by other means?
2.	Since April 1, 1951, have any members of the navy, army and air force been seconded to the office of the deputy minister, Department of National Defence, to fill the positions mentioned) in question 1, or any other positions? If so, what are (a) the names and ranks of these persons; (b) the period of their secondment; (c) the length of their military service, and did they serve overseas in world war I or world war II?
3.	Since April 1, 1951, have any civilian positions in the office of the deputy minister, Department of National Defence, been filled as the result of an open civil service commission competition?
4.	H so (a) what are the names of the successful applicant appointed to each position; (b) the length of their military service and did they serve overseas in world war I or world war II; (c) are they or will they be contributing to the civil service superannuation fund on the basis of 12 per cent of their starting salary in respect of the period of their military service under paragraph 5A (1) of the Civil Service Superannuation Act?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
BEDFORD BASIN NAVAL MAGAZINES-REPORT BY MR. P. A. WHELEN Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of a report made by Mr. P. A. Whelen, during the years 1945 and 1946, on pay and productive hours at Bedford naval magazine, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between organizations representing postal employees and the Postmaster General and/or officials of the

Post Office Department, dated since January 1. 1951, having to do with collective bargaining rights, the forty-hour week and any other matters affecting rates of pay and/or working conditions.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given notice. I should like to know what representations were made by the premier of Newfoundland as a result of which instructions were given for an R.C.A.F. plane to make a special flight from St. John's to Gander last Thursday night with a German national on board and to pick up another German national at Gander who was arriving by a Sabena plane from Germany that night. I raise this question because according to press reports this was part of the general political activity which has been taking place down there recently. I am asking what representations were made which resulted in this plane being made available.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank the leader of the opposition for sending notice of his question to my office so that I could have the matter looked into and get whatever information was available. On Thursday evening the premier of Newfoundland telephoned my office and asked if an R.C.A.F. plane could fly a government official-not a politician; that was his statement-from St. John's to Gander that evening. He said that the matter was urgent and that no other means of transport were available.
The matter was brought to my attention and I said that I could not give any order for any such flight but that it was the general policy of the government to meet reasonable requests from provincial governments when it was possible for us to do so. I suggested that they try to get in touch with St. John's to find out more about it and I especially warned them to make sure that it had nothing to do with the election that was in progress down there.
I understand that the deputy minister of national defence tried to get through to St. John's by telephone, but after several attempts he found that it would be several hours before he could do that. He communicated this information to my office and it was brought to my attention. I said, "Mr. Smallwood told us in his first message that he had been in touch with the officer commanding the air force down there and perhaps that officer knows what this is about;
94699-84^
Inquiries of the Ministry perhaps you could let him know that we do not want to refuse to do something which may be important-I do not know-but perhaps you might tell him what is the policy of the government in such circumstances. If you cannot get an answer from him, let him take the responsibility of deciding what would be proper in line with government policy". I said that I did not want to do that as Prime Minister, that there was an Acting Minister of National Defence. I said, "You can tell the acting minister what my views are without their being instructions from me, and determine with him what you had better do about it". I understand that, after discussing it with the deputy minister, the acting minister saw that that kind of message went to the officer commanding the R.C.A.F.


Mr. Coldwell:: Who is the Acting Minister of National Defence?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). I understand the flight was made. I do not know whether there was a German national on the inward or on the outward flight. We will inquire as to how the officer commanding the air force down there attempted to carry out this general policy to be of service to provincial governments but to be careful not to take part in any political controversies.


George Alexander Drew: Since the Prime Minister has indicated that he will be getting further information I would point out that the definite, undisputed facts, as set out in the press reports which have appeared, are that this plane went to meet a Sabena aircraft arriving from Germany that night and that on that plane was a Dr. Sennewald, who has become a figure in the political campaign under way in Newfoundland; that on the plane going to meet him was a German by the name of Brown Wogan; and that he went to meet this man for purposes which were quite apparent. I should like to know why a special plane should have been made available.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All I know is that the policy of the government of Newfoundland, whether it be proper or improper, has been to try to bring industries from overseas to be established in Newfoundland. Mr. Smallwood did tell me about some of his projects and I hope they will be successful. I shall make further inquiries and endeavour to see, on the one hand, that we do not refuse to do reasonable things for provincial governments, but also that we do not comply with requests that might be regarded as unreasonable.

Inquiries of the Ministry KOREA



REPORTED ARRANGEMENTS FOR A CEASE-FIRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Can
the Prime Minister give the house any information regarding the cease-fire agreement which, according to the latest British United Press dispatches, has been reached in Korea? Will this welcome news mean that as far as the United Nations-Canada being a member -are concerned', the fighting will cease? The dispatch is a little obscure. I would quote it as follows:
In the meantime it is believed that while officially the war will continue during the thirty-day period, it actually will die down.
In view of the interest of many Canadians, some with sons overseas, can the Prime Minister tell us what Canada's position is regarding this cease-fire?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. member any better information than I gave my wife when I went home for lunch. I did not hear the newscast over the radio as she did. She was quite firm in her belief that the fighting had ceased. As I had no official information I had to tell her that my understanding was that they were to agree upon where the line would be drawn, and* if they could within thirty days settle the other matters in dispute; all that before the cease-fire order took place. I assume, if they are well on the way to agreement, the fighting might be less active in the meantime, and I would hope that that would be the case. I shall give the house the information just as soon as we can get it from the headquarters of the United Nations.


Major James William Coldwell: After hearing the broadcast I thought that perhaps the Prime Minister might know more about the matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are endeavouring to get accurate information from the United Nations headquarters as to what it really means and I shall communicate that information to the house just as soon as it is obtained.



RESULTS OF PLEBISCITE ON MARKETING OF OATS AND BARLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["The short answer to both questions is no, but I do not think I should leave it at that. I think I should inform the house that the Secretary of State for External Affairs as chairman of the North Atlantic council has sent the following message to the prime minister of Italy, Signor de Gasperi:\nI am sure that I speak for all NATO governments in expressing to you our warm sympathy and deep concern for the trials and hardships which the people in northern Italy are suffering from the disastrous floods. Italy's partners in NATO will, I know, wish to co-operate by whatever means may be possible in giving help and assistance to meet this tragic emergency.\n\nI know that the means by which some assistance, either direct or indirect, could be made available to supplement the rescue operations which are being assisted by the United States and United Kingdom forces are being actively explored. The United States and the United Kingdom had armed forces stationed quite close by and they were able to be of very substantial assistance in this disaster. As soon as more details are available as to what is urgently needed-I have heard something to the effect that it is blankets and medical supplies-we will all be in a better position to determine what could or should be done."]
Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question, of which I have given notice. Can he give the house information as to how many voted for and against the marketing of oats and barley through the Canadian


wheat board in the plebiscite held in Manitoba, on Saturday, November 24?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The department has no official information regarding the results. After receiving the notice I asked for such information as could be obtained at that time. I understand the question asked was: Are you in favour of the present system of marketing oats and barley through the Canadian wheat board? The unofficial figures are as follows: 30,622 voted yes and 3,797 voted no.


Mr. Bryce:: Will the government, following the result of Saturday's coarse grain plebiscite in Manitoba, and having in mind the recommendation of the pools, give consideration to discontinuing the use of the Winnipeg grain exchange in making sales, and to placing flax and rye under the wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The methods used in marketing oats and barley are methods that commend themselves to the wheat board which is responsible for that operation. No consideration has been given to placing the marketing of flax and rye under the wheat board.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: I have a question which I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but as he is not here I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government received an appeal from any Italian sources or agencies asking for assistance for the people in the stricken areas of the Po river where disastrous floods have rendered almost 200,000 people homeless and caused property damage of hundreds of millions of dollars? If the government has received an appeal, will the Prime Minister state whether any help is being extended to these people?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The short answer to both questions is no, but I do not think I should leave it at that. I think I should inform the house that the Secretary of State for External Affairs as chairman of the North Atlantic council has sent the following message to the prime minister of Italy, Signor de Gasperi:
I am sure that I speak for all NATO governments in expressing to you our warm sympathy and deep concern for the trials and hardships which the people in northern Italy are suffering from the disastrous floods. Italy's partners in NATO will, I know, wish to co-operate by whatever means may be possible in giving help and assistance to meet this tragic emergency.

I know that the means by which some assistance, either direct or indirect, could be made available to supplement the rescue operations which are being assisted by the United States and United Kingdom forces are being actively explored. The United States and the United Kingdom had armed forces stationed quite close by and they were able to be of very substantial assistance in this disaster. As soon as more details are available as to what is urgently needed-I have heard something to the effect that it is blankets and medical supplies-we will all be in a better position to determine what could or should be done.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: In taking this opportunity to congratulate the Ottawa Rough Riders-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Thomas Richard: -I should like to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With respect to the question of the recent football championship game, I should say that the hon. member for Ottawa West telephoned my office and asked me if it would be in order for him to raise the question today. I told him that it was unanimously decided by the house at the last session not to bring up these matters.


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is why I did not get up exclusively for that purpose, but to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. I should like to ask him if it is the intention of the government to follow the recommendations of the Greber plan at an early date to co-operate in the erection of a stadium in Ottawa so that future Grey cup games between Ottawa and the west can be played in the capital city?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Really I have not given much thought to this question. I was elated when I learned that the Ottawa Rough Riders had won. I will submit the hon. member's question to my colleagues of the cabinet and when they agree on some project I will let the house know.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF BANK OF CANADA SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENT BOND PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, having already given him notice of it. Will he confirm or deny the following statement:
Big news of the week was the Bank of Canada temporarily withdrawing its support from government bond prices.
This statement appeared in the Financial Post of November 24.


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I got the Financial Post and searched through it. On page 4 I found a little story headed, "Government Bond Prices Hold After Sharp Drop". The main part of the story is a repetition of the statement I made last week in answer to the hon. member for Kamloops. I cannot see where that is the big news of the week, even by the Financial Post's standards. The second point is that I have nothing to add to the statement I made on government policy last week. I would point out, however, that this very story in the Financial Post does say that bonds of comparable issues of both the United Kingdom and the United States have fallen more over the same period. Neither of these two governments follows a policy of bond support either.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I might make a comment it would be in the words of a former distinguished member of my party, that we were given a lot of words but no answer.



STORAGE FACILITIES AT CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I should like to reply to a question asked on Friday by the hon. member for Saskatoon. He inquired as to whether representations had been made concerning the expanding of storage facilities for grain at Churchill. I received a letter from the interprovincial farmers union council asking that the grain storage facilities at Churchill be doubled. While consideration will still be given to other parts of the letter, I should tell the hon. member that because of the

The Address-Mr. Hansell shortness of the season at Churchill, and also on account of the very limited amount of incoming cargo, I do not think it would be advisable to expand the facilities at that point.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: Last week the leader of the opposition raised a point concerning the printing of the public accounts. At that time I gave some reasons why the printing was delayed and said that I thought it unlikely they would be published for another two weeks. Since that time the comptroller general of the treasury has prepared a statement outlining the difficulties which arise in the publication of this very large book. I do not think there is any point in my giving the further reasons but he does say that it has been found possible now to turn out a special printing of the appendix, the report of the Auditor General, and that will be in the hands of all hon. members on Wednesday before the public accounts committee sits.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I do
not want to ask a new question, but on November 7 I placed a question on the order paper which was passed as an order for return on November 12. It is a very important question, and reads as follows:
1.	What are the regulations regarding the manu-ture of (a) butter; (b) margarine, for human consumption?
2.	What amount of each kind of oil or other ingredient is used in the manufacture of a pound of margarine?
No return has as yet been tabled, and I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the government so that the return will be made soon.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session,

and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Quelch.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very usual for the good brethren to walk out before I announce my text, but under the circumstances, so much time having been spent today in the asking and answering of questions on the orders of the day, perhaps it is excusable. In this debate on the speech from the throne I wish to emphasize one or two points that have been mentioned during the course of the debate, but which so far have not received any satisfactory reply from the government side of the house.
The first matter is that, in spite of the government's action announced during the last session to curb the rising cost of living and put a brake on inflation, the cost of living still continues to rise. I was interested in listening to the speech by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) some weeks ago. The hon. member is, in my opinion, a rather capable individual and carries his burden quite well. During the course of his speech I could not help thinking that he was extremely apologetic when attempting to explain to the house how inflation was brought about, why the cost of living continues to rise, and the fact that there was not a great deal that the government could do about it. I fancy he spoke officially for the government, and I took his speech as a series of excuses.
In such a predicament as we find ourselves in today, with the average or lower income people finding it so difficult to meet the cost of living, we want something more than apologies and excuses. It is not good enough for members on the government side of the house to argue that the situation cannot be helped, that it is a world-wide situation, or attempting to compare Canada with some other countries and pleading that our situation here is not perhaps as bad as it is in some countries. It is not good enough for them to excuse the situation toy saying it is a result of the war which left us with few consumer goods.
The attitude that things just happen is not the right attitude to take. Might I suggest to the government that nothing just happens. Surely, they have heard of that great law of cause and effect. This law is just as true in respect of the actions of the government, whose actions must be based on their policy, as it is in other fields. Nothing just happens. There is a reason for anything happening, and the reason that we have inflation today,

the reason that there is a steady incline in the cost of living, is to be found in the monetary policy that has been pursued by the government and their predecessors. Excuses are not enough. We must ask them to determine what financial policy they are desirous of pursuing in order to check inflation and the rise in the cost of living.
During the course of the debate one or two speakers on this side of the house mentioned the fact that people who cash bonds today do not receive the full value of those bonds. I believe it was the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who gave an illustration of a young woman who found it necessary to cash some of her bonds, and who did not receive full value for them. I believe the excuse was that perhaps she cashed them before they came due, and therefore had to take a discount. This illustration was used on more than one occasion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) immediately replied that during the war years when we were floating those bond issues he promised that they would always be worth one hundred cents on the dollar. Well, that is a fine statement to make, and I suppose the minister is technically correct when he says that when those bonds mature the holder will be paid one hundred cents on the dollar. The more important point has been overlooked, and that is the fact that when the bonds are cashed, even though one might receive one hundred cents on the dollar, the one hundred cents only goes half as far in purchasing power as it did when the bonds were bought. We cannot lose sight of that point. The reason our dollar is only valued at half what it was several years ago is the result of government policy, and the government cannot pass the buck by saying these things just happen.
As a further point may I say, and this is another point which no one mentioned, perhaps owing to the fact hon. members are not too well informed on the matter, that when people cash their bonds today with the chartered banks, the chartered banks make a new issue of money in payment for those bonds. The result is that there is that much more money going out into circulation. This point would be well worth considering. As I mentioned in previous sessions, even when the government put on their sale of these bonds they encouraged the white-collar worker and others to take these bonds out on the instalment plan or even to borrow money from the banks to buy them. That in itself aggravated the inflationary trend; because every time anyone borrowed money from the banks in order to buy these bonds,
The Address-Mr. Hansell the banks expanded the financial credit of this country. More money came into existence, with perhaps less consumer goods. That is something which perhaps has not been any too prominently mentioned here, but it is something that is extremely important in the general effect it has on purchasing power today.
Then again there are people who put their savings in the bank, put money away for a rainy day, or contributed some of their income to pay for industrial pensions. What has happened? Years have gone by. They now find it necessary to withdraw some of their savings or they are in receipt of industrial pensions for which they have already paid. What do we find? The money they receive today is worth only half as much as it was worth when they saved it or when they put it into their pension schemes. The result is that they can buy only half as much consumer goods. That is the problem we have to face today, and it is one that has resulted from the government's attitude. They have persisted in following a policy for whose framework they are also responsible.
I am now going to give an illustration. Perhaps hon. members did not read this in the papers the other day because it was not headlined. A certain aged lady went down to the bank here on Sparks street and withdrew $1,000 of her savings which she had put in the bank many years ago. As she was going out of the bank, by way of the front door, near the sidewalk a burly sort of a chap brushed against her. She felt something in her side and the man said: Come through; this is a stick-up. The lady fumbled around with her handbag and the thug-I will call him that-began to get a bit nervous; he poked his hand in the lady's bag and pulled out $500 and began to escape. The lady of course put up a little nervous cry, and it was not long until the news was spread abroad that there had been a stick-up. Of course the mayor of this city-or shall I say the mayoress-heard about it. She immediately contacted the chief of police and demanded that they get that man. She was surely going to have her man. No man is going to stick up defenceless women as long as I am mayor of this city, she said. So the police put a cordon around a few blocks, and the man was caught.
As I say, hon. members did not see this incident headlined in the paper. When the mask was torn from this man's face, to their surprise the police found that the face underneath the mask was none other than that of Douglas Charles Abbott, the finance minister of Canada. Of course the police were greatly surprised. How could they arrest such a distinguished gentleman? When they
13X4

The Address-Mr. Hansell asked him to produce his gun he said: You surely do not think I did that with a gun. The police asked: What did you do it with? I do not know what he produced, but what he actually did it with was the government's financial policy. That is exactly what happened.
That is an allegory. I am quite certain that if the incident I have described actually happened, the people would be up in arms. Yet in effect that is what has happened. That is what happens to any person who goes to the bank today and takes out $1,000 of the hard-earned savings he has put in there over the years. When he comes to spend it on the production of this country with all its wealth, he finds that he has only $500. I could pursue that little allegory a bit further. Perhaps I shall.


Mr. Byrne:: It might be worth while if it had some sense to it.


Ernest George Hansell: I will give you some sense if you do not think that is sense. Somebody asked the old lady how it felt to be held up. She said: I did not feel it a bit. He was such a nice man, and he had such a nice, shiny gun. In fact, I told him, she said, that I would be back in a week or two for another thousand, and if he was around I would not mind much if he did the same thing again. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) suggested that I might illustrate the point with some sense. He might say: The last part of your illustration surely is nonsense. But let me tell him that it is no more nonsense than it will be for a bunch of chumps to turn around in the next election and vote Liberal. It will take a little while for that statement's meaning to dawn on the mind of my hon. friend; hut eventually he will get it.


An hon. Member:: It is very deep.


Ernest George Hansell: The fact of the matter is this. I say again that the result of the financial policy that has been pursued by the present government is the situation we have today, and they cannot escape responsibility.
We need to speed up the wheels of our vast productive system. We need to put on the market more consumer goods. I know, of course, what the government will say to that suggestion. They will say: But you must recognize the fact that a great deal of our productive machinery today is being put into the production of non-consumer goods; the world is on the edge of a volcano; we have joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and we are spending money on our defences. I realize that fact. We all realize it. We all like to be as sensible as we can be. But let me ask one question. Suppose, for instance, we


should be greatly surprised one of these days to find that we had come into an era of peace, when the confidence and trust between nations should suddenly be restored and there were no danger of an international armed conflict. I should like to know how the government would handle the situation if the wheels of our productive system should suddenly be changed over to the production of consumer goods. Would they shy away from a possible problem of unemployment? In what way would they change the framework of their monetary system in order to cope with a situation of that kind? That is something they have never answered, and something that men in public life should know. It is something that the people of Canada should know. It is something I will dare them to answer. Their financial policy would not be able to take care of a situation of that kind. I declare on that score that the government has absolutely no answer.
The other matter that I should like to refer to is the subamendment, which in reality is now under discussion. It was moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch)-I think it was well moved and well timed. I will read it for the record:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Furthermore, we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance.
Previous to this I had intended to speak on the Legion's brief respecting an increase in their pensions. The other day we were delighted to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) announce that there would be an increase in war veterans' pensions. This has been mentioned before; it will bear mentioning again. Why did the government decide to increase the veterans' pensions, when no mention was made of it in the speech from the throne a few weeks ago? Could it be that pressure was brought to bear upon them to do it at this particular time, or could it be that an election was in the offing and they wanted to tell the people how much they thought of them? If the latter statement is correct, it may conceivably be found that they desired to assist Liberal Walter Thomson in his election. At least they got their answer, if they were willing to gamble millions of dollars for political purposes.


Mr. Cardiff:: They assisted him out.


Ernest George Hansell: However, I am saying this- and I want to be fair. We have reason to be pleased with the announcement. Our only regret is-and this has been mentioned before -that the government were not able, or did not see themselves able, to give similar

increases in war veterans allowances. We all know that today there are veterans who, as tar as their financial status is concerned, are perhaps in a worse plight than many war veterans on pensions. There are older veterans, widows and perhaps mothers and dependents who have no way in the world of making a living, and yet no thought was given to them. It is all very well for the government to say that a special committee is to be set up next session to look into this matter, to discover whether or not rates under the war veterans allowance are to remain the same or how much they should be increased. To me that is a very lame excuse, because all the government needs to do is to apply the same logic, the same reasoning and the same actuarial studies to the war veterans allowance as they did to the increase in pensions. Unquestionably they increased the war veterans pensions because of the higher cost of living. Well, the higher cost of living applies equally to those who are in receipt of war veterans allowances as to pensioners. What I am saying is that we are very sadly disappointed that these increases have not been announced, and that there will be no increase in the war veterans allowances until some time next year and perhaps late in the year. I say that because we all know that committee work takes time. Perhaps the next session will not be called until next February and the committee will not be set up until the end of that month and it may take a couple of months after that to report. That is the situation. However, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Acadia put the motion as he did, because it will give no hon. member in the house any excuse, when the vote comes, for not laying right on the line what his attitude is in respect to this matter.
I was very interested the other day in the line of debate pursued by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The hon. member was talking on this particular amendment and showing how each and every hon. member would now be in a position to register his vote, one way or the other. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) objected as follows, as appears at page 1244 of Hansard:
Does my hon. friend suggest that when any member of this house comes to register his vote, he does not use that privilege in accordance with his best judgment in the circumstances?
Of course that is a trick question. We all know that, from experience of the past in this house. Some of us have been sitting here a long time. We all know from past experience in the house that it is one thing to say something out on the hustings, but it is another thing to do something about it in this house when it comes to registering your vote. We all 94699-85
The Address-Mr. Hansell know what happens. I shall now finish the quotation from Hansard. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare interjected that question the hon. member for Lake Centre went on:
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to become involved in any argument such as that. I am asking the question of the minister again, and giving him the opportunity to answer. Will he, speaking for the government, say that a free vote will be given on this amendment? That is the question.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has never answered that question from that day to this. Let me pursue the matter a little further. We all know that just preceding the present session a circular letter was sent out from the Legion headquarters to all their organizations throughout the country, asking them to get in touch with their members and put before them the case for increased pensions and increased war veterans allowances. They came to me. I spoke before the local organizations of the Legion, and I suppose other hon. members did. What did members of this house tell these local bodies comprising the Legions throughout this country? What did the members tell them? Well, I know what they told them; but it does not take half an eye or half a brain to discern what they were told- "Well, of course, we will do all we can for the pensioners; of course we will do all we can for those who are on war veterans allowances; of course we will." Yet, it is one thing to tell them something in your own home town or in your own constituency, when they come to you. But, Mr. Speaker, we are here and now given an opportunity that will take us much further than vain words, vain speeches-vain words, words, words!
Now comes the opportunity for each and every member in the house to say whether they stand behind our veterans in respect of war veterans allowances, or whether their loyalty is to their political party, first. That is the issue, and it will be the issue in this vote. There is no getting away from that.
There is one other point I should like to discuss. When anyone raises, a fuss along these lines, when one suggests that some hon. members are more concerned about keeping the government in office than in expressing and pursuing vigorously the wishes of their people, some government member rises in his place and says, "Well, under our parliamentary system we have a system of responsible government."
I remember that happened a year or two ago when, speaking about our parliamentary system, I compared it with the American system, as well as one or two others. When I was urging that some changes be made so as to bring into existence a more effective

The Address-Mr. Hansell democracy, wherein members at all times, in their speeches and in their votes, would reflect the desires of their constituents, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) rose and answered on behalf of the government. While he is Minister of National Defence, he is also an expert on constitutional law. At that time he said, in effect, "Under our system we have responsible government." Well, that is a nice expression; it sounds good. But, I ask: Responsible to whom? That is the question.
The only answer that can be given in a democracy is that they are responsible to the people of the nation. The only place where the people can make their wants and wishes known is on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why each and every member has been elected. We are the people's mouths, whether in criticism or in praise. And when it comes to voicing our opinion and registering our votes, then I declare that this subamendment gives each and every member an opportunity to say unreservedly where they stand in respect of war veterans allowances. Are they in favour of them or are they not?
I know the government will say that in this amendment there is an element of want of confidence, and that members supporting the government cannot be expected to vote for such an amendment. All right; the challenge goes out once again, when I say that the acceptance or rejection of this vote does not mean necessarily support or rejection of a vote of want of confidence. Let some minister rise in his place and say, "On this issue we will permit all members supporting the government to have a free vote, so that we may be able to determine exactly what the people of Canada want. Then, as their servants, we will pursue the policy of giving effect to their wishes".
That is the point I wanted to make. My leader the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) whispers to me now that if the government will bring down an announcement to the effect that at this session, right now, war veterans allowances will be increased as pensions have been-and if that is done before we leave here, in two or three weeks-we shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
I have one further point to make-and I fear my speech is reaching a sort of anticlimax. However, I cannot take my seat without referring to the apparent plight of the farmers in the west, brought about by the late harvest and the freak seasons we have had throughout the year. We have had rain and snow, and abundant crops, but much of it lies under the snow or is too wet to thresh. Let me add my voice to what has been said by many representatives from


western Canada, who have said that the government should do something to alleviate this condition. I have taken a trip to the west since the beginning of the session, and while there I had the opportunity to talk with a number of people. I travelled through a considerable portion of Alberta and had an opportunity to discover what the situation was. The condition may have improved somewhat since that time, because I understand the weather has been more favourable. Nevertheless a tremendous amount of crop is still under the snow.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) announce a few days ago that the final wheat payment would be made. Perhaps that will help the farmers to some degree, so that they will have a little bit of that jingling stuff in their pockets. Nevertheless they will continue to find themselves in financial difficulties.
I do not wish to repeat suggestions which have been made before. I understand they have been made by the government of Alberta as well as by that of Saskatchewan. They have been made in the house by a number of speakers, when they have asked for the granting of loans on wheat in the bins, or even some sort of assistance in respect of crops that may eventually be harvested, but are not harvested at this time.
I suggest the government should do something about this serious matter.
Let me point out once again, as this group has done year after year, that the government's financial policy is bound within the confines of a framework it has vigorously supported and defended through the years. Almost everything the government has done, almost all financial legislation it has brought down, almost all international agreements touching upon the matter of finance and money, has been designed by the government so as to solidify and make permanent the financial framework from which it refuses to budge, and refuses to change. I am saying once again that just as long as they refuse to change, but pursue the same policies, there can be no improvement. Let it be understood that the same policies that get you into difficulty will never get you out. Once again I say that there will be no permanent solution of the many problems that confront us in the matter of finance, currency, cost of living and what have you until they change some of their basic and fundamental principles which today are false.
(Translation):


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am merely following the policy I have adopted of opening all my

speeches in this house with a few words in French.
Mr. Speaker, I do this in order to stress the bilingual character of our country. I feel very gratified in fulfilling this duty and I propose to continue doing so whenever the opportunity presents itself.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, it is six weeks since His Excellency the Governor General delivered the speech from the throne. Following this we heard excellent speeches from the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the motion to adopt the address and lest their content and form of delivery be obscured by the intervening proceedings, I desire, Mr. Speaker, even at this late stage, to join my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for Beau-harnois and the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River upon the high standard they have set in the splendid addresses which they delivered.
I should like to address myself, Mr. Speaker, principally to one matter referred to in the speech from the throne. I realize that referring to the Old Age Security Act at this stage may at first glance appear somewhat post facto, but I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that even though the legislation has been adopted by the house, I think my comments will nevertheless be timely, because I desire to deal with the spirit of the legislation and relate it to its administrative prospects when it comes into force on January 1 next.
I was impressed, as was no doubt every hon. member in this house and every person in Canada, by the gentle description which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) gave to the men and women of Canada who are affected by the act when he referred to them as our senior citizens. That is a much kindlier reference and a much more thoughtful one than the term "old age pensioner" which is commonly used. For, in truth, Mr. Speaker, they are our elder citizens and should justly be known and treated as such.
Advanced years is one status which we all seek to attain and desire despite the apprehension as to what the fates may have in store for us. It is a strange phenomenon that, despite the fears which human beings hold with respect to old age, we all strive to grow older. We often shrink from the thought that we are actually growing older and yet we constantly exploit all the sciences to preserve ourselves to be able to do so. In speaking of this apprehension which we have about old age I am moved to quote from the liturgy
1317
The Address-Mr. Crestohl of my faith very briefly. There is a supplicating prayer which reads:
"Cast us not off in our old age, and when our strength has ebbed do not forsake us."
That is a solemn prayer which people of all faiths utter in silence and in hope as the years move on. It is my conviction-in fact it is self-evident-that the adoption of this bill is an answer to that prayer. No one knows where he will be and under what circumstances any one of us may find himself at the age of seventy. Canada can now say with pride that it has not cast off its aged and has not forsaken them when their strength has ebbed.
With respect to the natural desire we all have to grow older, I am reminded of a little anecdote which is told about an ageing mother who at eighty years of age, because of her advanced years, was indisposed. Her considerate son sent for a physician to see her. The doctor with his charming bedside manner, and realizing her age, gently said to her, "You know, of course, madam, that time marches on and you, like all the rest of us, are not getting any younger". To which the little lady snapped back, "Young man, I don't expect you to help me get younger; you have been summoned here to help me get older, so get on with your job".
That, of course, typifies the desire of each one of us to attain that magnificent status to which years have no limit, but in which the years alone make us more dependent upon others. The problem of treating elder citizens has since time immemorial been a matter of grave concern to heads of governments and its solution has assumed various forms throughout the ages. I do not want to present a historic survey of how different peoples have treated their aged. I do not have to cite the Spartan approach or the Hitler system of doing away with human beings who could not bear arms because of old age or physical infirmity, but I do want to refer to one authority, no doubt the oldest authority, an authority which is indisputable and which sets into proper focus the lofty level of regard and the consideration which should be shown to our elder citizens, all of which is in consonance with the Canadian way of life.
Like one of my illustrious predecessors from the constituency of Cartier, the late Mr. S. W. Jacobs, who frequently quoted from the scriptures on the floor of this house, I too would like to quote from the ten commandments to which the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) referred the other night and which are universally acknowledged to be the first code of ethics given to man. The
1318	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crestohl fifth commandment teaches us a very subtle lesson on how we should treat our elders. It reads:
"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
That is the enjoinder of this commandment. I am not a clergyman, but I am the son of a clergyman and therefore take a little poetic liberty which, together with the immunity provided by this house, may enable me to encroach upon what may be interpreted as a sermonette.
The commandment which I have just quoted is the only one that carries with it a promise of reward to those who will observe it. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee". My neighbour to my left, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne), reminds me that in Sunday school class this commandment was called the first commandment with a promise. Biblical scholars have many interpretations for this commandment. The one I should like to emphasize is a version given to me by a friend of mine, Mr. Barney Aaron, a recognized scholar of biblical lore and literature in Montreal, who points out that this commandment means that you should honour not only your own father and mother, but also everyone else's father and mother. These in reality are the fathers and the mothers of the nation and if you honour them, then the reward is promised. Your own days will be long, you too will grow old to be a father or a mother. You too will be honoured in your own old age and in your own country where you will have honoured your own elders.
I should like to add another interpretation. This commandment speaks not only to the individual, but also to the nation as a whole. The words, "that thy days may be long upon the land", teach us the following lesson: That nation which lives in a land that honours its elders, builds a strong moral fibre, will continue to live in happiness upon its soil, will be free from the conquest that results from moral disintegration from within, and will be strong to repel assault from without.
By the adoption of this act, Mr. Speaker, the parliament of Canada, the people of Canada, give public and universal expression of their observance of the fifth commandment. This epoch-making law elevates every Canadian, and is in stride with the social justice program of this government and as the minister rightly declared, it places our country in the forefront of the nations of the entire world in the field of progressive legislation for the welfare of its people, and bespeaks for our country a lofty moral future.

It is so typical and characteristic of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to have treated this subject with the tenderness with which he did. He is eminently suited by temperament, by upbringing and by character to sense fully the consideration with which such a delicate matter should be handled. This was beautifully illustrated by a photograph which appeared in the press two weeks ago showing the minister with all his attention riveted on his mother in the midst of a happy family group. I have the photograph from the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, November 7, 1951. It bears the title, "Happy Family Reunion", and the reference under the picture reads:
"Paying one of his rare visits to his home town, Pembroke, Health Minister Paul Martin took time off to attend the Pembroke Rotary club dinner in company with his elderly mother."
I hope the minister will forgive me the personal reference, but I am moved to mention it by the symbolic coincidence that he should appear in the genuine role of a doting son to a greying mother on the same day that he was piloting through parliament a piece of legislation spelling out the love and affection of all Canadian children for all Canadian fathers and mothers. This sentimental touch epitomizes the profound and genuine understanding of the duties which the younger generation should constantly have for all fathers and mothers who, as I previously stated, constitute the fathers and the mothers of the nation.
I should like now to make one or two observations with respect to the application of the act in practice. The theory of paying a pension universally to rich and poor alike carries with it a dignity commensurate with our desire to preserve for our senior citizens the self-respect to which they are entitled by age alone, if by nothing else. It eliminates the stigma, in my judgment, of relief or charity and clothes it with the stature of a reward well deserved and well earned for many years of service. I am anxious that this sense of dignity be preserved on the administrative level where, if we are not careful, there is a danger that the entire philosophy of the act may slip from its elevation. I should like the administration of this act to be as generous and as considerate as it deserves to be. I am not unmindful of the great caution that must be exercised in the spending of public funds, but this is one expenditure that I should like to see made with a greater emphasis on the payment than on the caution.
The officials in charge should be men with charity in their hearts and a kindness in their souls. These humane qualifications will

be required particularly to interpret sympathetically the documents and evidence submitted in support of applications which they will be called upon to consider. I am, for example, concerned with the fact that many of the applicants may not be in possession of birth certificates, particularly those applicants who were born in countries whose records were destroyed in the European holocaust, or records which are in the possession of countries where they are not accessible. I was happy to hear the minister constantly repeat on the floor of the house that every reasonable form of evidence as to age will be accepted. This is the humane approach, and I have every confidence that he will cause to penetrate to his administrative staff the same qualities in dealing with the applicants.
In speaking of administrative staff, 1 should like to say that we have indeed a most efficient and devoted civil service who hold and well merit the confidence of the people of Canada. They seem, however, to have classified themselves in two categories, the civil servant with an affirmative approach and the civil servant with a negative approach. I should like to illustrate something which is perhaps well known to almost every member of the house. John Citizen walks into the office of an official who promptly fixes in his mind that this man is looking for something and the official says to himself, "Now, what does he want?" He listens carefully and promptly turns up the regulation to indicate why the request cannot be granted. That is the negative minded civil servant.
Then there is the affirmative minded civil servant who, as he sees John Citizen walking into his office, allows himself the charitable thought, "There goes John Citizen, he must have a problem, he requires some assistance; I am his obedient servant, let me see what I can do to help him." He listens to the problem as did the other gentleman and he too reaches out for the book of regulations, but he finds something in the act to offer some measure of relief, if not totally at least partially. He speaks to John Citizen with a smile on his face and offers to help him as much as he is able to. That is the affirmative minded civil servant. It is my prayerful hope, therefore, that only civil servants who are affirmative minded will be charged with the administration of this act.
In all humility I should like to say that, because it was my privilege for many years to serve as the honorary secretary of the Montreal Hebrew old people's sheltering home, I acquired some little knowledge of the problems which people of advanced years present, and I therefore appeal to those who will administrate the act to regard the
The Address-Mr. Crestohl documents which they see before them not as cold type, not just as another file or another file number, but to understand the messages which these documents are intended to convey, and above all to remember that behind each document is at least 70 years of human life, loyalty, devotion and no doubt much suffering, which now pleads for gentle treatment at the hands of civil servants and pleads for a peaceful old age. If a country has the government it deserves, a minister too has the staff he deserves. This humane minister cannot, therefore, be surrounded by other than a most sympathetic administrative staff, and we can have every confidence that this act will be dealt with in the spirit of the minister himself. The people of Canada can ask for nothing better or more reassuring.
I should like nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the means test which has been eliminated at age 70 but retained between the ages of 65 and 69. I, for one, do not approve the dual classification allowing a pension at age 65 with a means test and at age 70 without a means test. There is a discomforting paradox in the situation. If a person requires a pension at age 65 and files his application, he should not be humbled by a means test any more than a person who files his application at age 70. There will be thousands of affluent Canadians of age 70 and over who will not file applications. On the other hand, there are thousands who at age 65 will not file applications, notwithstanding their need for assistance, because they want to avoid being humbled and embarrassed by the means test. These two classes would well balance each other. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians who are called upon to meet the cost of this new legislation will have no objection to extending themselves a little further if need be to eliminate this discomforting procedure known as the means test and enable the government to pay this universal pension without a means test to everyone who applies for it at age 65 and over. The present legislation is a good beginning in that direction, and I am hopeful that in the not too distant future the government in its wisdom will be able to eliminate the means test altogether.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has frankly stated during the debate that time and experience may suggest improvements. At the risk of being redundant I want to ask the minister again to review section 5 of the act which deals with the suspension of the pension to anyone who leaves Canada for a certain period. At age 70 and over people become quite frail, and frequently they are alone. They may have
1320	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crestohl to leave Canada for short or long periods to preserve their health or in order to reside with a child outside of Canada rather than live with strangers or alone. If the denial of the monthly pension is to produce real hardship, the minister, I know, will have another look at this section of the act with a view to eliminating such a possibility.
I should like to draw to his attention also that a satisfactory explanation to justify the suspension of these payments has not been made. If I recall correctly, the only explanation given was that those who leave Canada will not be here to spend their money, while those who remain in Canada continue to make their contribution by paying sales tax on the purchases which they make in Canada. The mathematics of this explanation, in my opinion, does not justify the conclusion reached. Let us have a look at it in dollars and cents. The $40 per month which is not spent in Canada by the person who leaves the country deprives Canada of the 2 per cent sales tax on that amount which he would spend if he resided in Canada, so the country is deprived of 80 cents per month. To preserve this 80 cents we deprive a needy person of the $40 per month if he is obliged by circumstances to leave the country. I do not think this feature is in line with the lofty purpose of the act, and I have every confidence that the minister will review this section in the light of the generous spirit of the entire legislation.
Hay I also, Mr. Speaker, say a word about the title of the bill, despite the fact that I raised that question at the time the bill was Considered. I raise it once more in the hope that upon reflection the minister may see no harm but much good in recommending a change in the title. It is true that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, but in considering legislation of a special and delicate character due regard should be had for each clause, for each phrase, including the title. The minister has given this legislation an atmosphere of some reverence. In order to maintain this appreciation I feel that the language "Oldi Age Security"-which suggests a pension-in the title of the bill itself is an undesirable feature. There is nothing disagreeable in the word "pension" because one can refer with pride to the title veterans pension, which is an award' made to the heroes of our country for services rendered!. On the other hand the wordls "old age security" or old age pension seem to carry a subtle connotation associated with philanthropy or relief. It is precisely this reflection that I should like to see modified. I am, therefore, hopeful that, in a general review of the bill as it advances in practice, the minister will conclude that some such title as "An act for


the benefit of senior Canadians" would better suit this particular legislation and that he will, in consequence, recommend a change in the title.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on another matter which is causing some concern in many quarters. About two weeks ago the newspapers reported that the first German ambassador since the war has been duly accredited to Canada, and that complete embassy and consular services are to be established here. As I said a moment ago there is considerable apprehension surrounding this fact, because many of the German consular officials recently accredited to the various countries are suspected of being men indoctrinated with the nazi and totalitarian philosophy, who were formerly connected with the nazi party in Germany. I quote from a report datelined Washington, D.C., November 9, 1951, which appeared in the Canadian Jewish Chronicle, published at Montreal:
The "new" German diplomatic corps is preparing to expand its operations by opening a considerable number of consulates in the United States and throughout the world. Some of the men it will send out formerly worked with American anti-Semites to promote nazi propaganda in this country. In January, 1951, the 252 members of the German diplomatic service included a total of 151 who served under von Ribbentrop, 130 of them members of the nazi party.
I therefore urge upon the government that these gentlemen, and! all other immigrants to Canada from Germany, should be most carefully screened and examined. The greatest caution should be taken to safeguard this country from the influences which may penetrate from the fascist right as well as from the communistic left. We want neither of these evil influences to impede or interfere with the development of our country on the democratic foundations upon which it stands, and on which it has flourished and will continue to flourish, making it one of the greatest democracies in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the subject now before the house is the subamendment which was moved on November 7 by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), asking for an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance to compensate for the increase ip the cost of living. I intend to devote my remarks to that subject and to speak as strongly as I can in support of that proposition. Before I do so, however, I may say that it seems a bit of a coincidence that I should get the floor immediately after the speech that has just been made by the hon. member for Caitier (Mr. Crestohl). If I had thought that it would be in order on any

subsequent occasion this session to speak on the subject of old age pensions, I certainly would not have passed up the opportunity to do so. However, I want to say that I agree with a number of statements the hon. member has made. In particular I was glad to hear him support the proposition that the means test should be removed at age 65. I earnestly hope that it will not be long until this parliament takes that step. I agree with him also in his contention that once a person goes on the old age pension, particularly under our new legislation, he should be entitled to draw that pension even if he finds it necessary to move to some warmer climate than that which we experience in this country, which is a bit severe for some of our older people.
While I agree with statements of that nature which were made by the hon. member for Cartier, I must say that I cannot go along with him in his complete acceptance of our old age pension legislation as evidence that this parliament has wholly implemented the fifth commandment or in his suggestion that by passing the Old Age Security Act Canada has made it clear that she has not forsaken her aged citizens. When we ask our older people, particularly those who have nothing else, to get along on $40 a month-even when we have removed the means test and even when we call it old age security instead of an old age pension-I want to say that we really are forsaking a great many of our older people. As I pointed out in the other debates which are now closed, more than 200,000 Canadians 70 years of age and over are already drawing the full $40 a month; and for them there will be no increase whatsoever as a result of the legislation which we passed at this session. Though we welcome most enthusiastically the steps that have been taken by this parliament, for they are signs of progress, may I point out that there are further steps still to be taken; and they should be taken now, not after many of the older people, whom we are called upon by the fifth commandment to honour, have passed on because we have not given them enough to live on.
I agree with the hon. member for Cartier, and I welcome his support of the proposal that the means test should be removed at age 65. I hope that he will support some of the rest of us in our contention that the amount of the pension should be increased' to a figure of at least $60 a month, which is a minimum under today's conditions.
As I indicated when I rose to my feet, the subject now before the house is the subamendment that was moved on November 7 by the hon. member for Acadia, asking that
The Address-Mr. Knowles something be done about the war veterans allowance, and in particular asking that something be done at this session of parliament. This is indeed a session which has had to deal with many important issues. The previous speaker and I have just had something to say about one of those important issues, namely old age security. The question of inflation and the high cost of living has been much before parliament at this session. Similarly there are other matters of great importance before hon. members, but I suggest that one of the hottest subjects is this question of the war veterans allowance. As hon. members know, before we came to Ottawa for the session which began on October 9, the Legion and other veterans organizations were in touch with practically all members of parliament, asking us to make sure that their representations to the government were given consideration at this session. I felt, as I am sure most hon. members did, that their requests were most reasonable. There was nothing exaggerated in what they requested. They asked for an increase in the amount of the disability pension commensurate with the increase in the cost of living since those rates were last determined. They also asked for an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance. Their proposal in that connection was that the maximum for a single veteran, which is now $40.41 a month, should be increased to $50 a month; and that the allowance for a married veteran, which is now $70.83 a month, should be increased to $100 a month.
I repeat what I said a moment ago. There is certainly nothing exaggerated about a request of that kind, namely that our so-called burnt-out pensioners should be given an allowance of $50 a month if single, or $100 a month if married. In my view the Legion and other veterans organizations would have been quite justified in asking for larger amounts than those which were included in their representations.
As hon. members know, in the speech from the throne there was nothing to indicate that anything was going to be done about either of those requests. The result was that from all sides of the house a great deal was said about these matters right from the very day that parliament opened. In due course that discussion brought from the government, on October 19, an announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). That announcement is to be found at page 197 of Hansard, to the effect that the government had decided to do something at this session about the disability pension. As hon. members know, we have since had a further announcement as to the amounts of the

The Address-Mr. Knowles increases to be provided, and we have also had the introduction of the bill. I think it is only fair to say that members in all parts of the house are indeed pleased with that announcement as to the disability pension^ and with the terms and provisions of the bill as far as it goes. But in that same announcement the minister stated that, as to the War Veterans Allowance Act, the government's decision was to deal with that at the next session of parliament. By way of spelling out its plan, the government said through the Minister of Veterans Affairs that at the next session of parliament a special committee would be set up to go into that act, with particular reference to the relationship between it and the old age legislation which has since been passed by this house.
I am sure the government is not at all surprised that members of the house generally -particularly those on the opposition side, although I know there are many on the government side who feel the same way about it -having had the experience of pressure for those two changes being met by something being done about the disability pension, are keeping up the demand that the Legion's request for increases in the war veterans allowance be met at this session. It simply is not good enough to propose that the matter be considered by a committee at the next session of parliament. Even the suggestion that any changes proposed as a result of that committee's work could be made retroactive to January 1 does not solve the problem which our veterans on the burnt-out pension now face; and, so far as the government announcement is concerned, it is a problem that will continue for many cold months. Since that announcement on October 19 there have been several occasions when hon. members have put questions to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the hope that the pressure being put on by hon. members generally might have resulted in the government changing its position. I need not read them, but I have notes on my desk here with reference to questions of mine on Monday, November 12, as recorded at page 905 of Hansard, and also on Friday, November 16, as recorded at page 1088 of Hansard. On both those occasions, and on any other occasions when the direct question has been put to the minister as to whether or not anything is going to be done at this session with reference to veterans allowances, the reply has been that government policy had been announced. That simply referred to the statement on October 19 to the effect that a committee would be set up at the next session of parliament. Mr. Speaker, the reason I devote my remarks at this time to this question, as I am sure has been the reason other hon. members in this debate

have risen to speak in support of the subamendment before the house, is that I feel the position taken by the government is not satisfactory, and we still hope that by continuing to bring this matter to the attention of the government, by continuing to impress upon them how the veterans of this country and the veterans organizations feel, we may yet persuade them to take action at this session.
The minister's announcement on October 19 implied that one of the main problems to be dealt with was that of working out a proper relationship between the war veterans allowance and the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act. I agree that is a problem. As a matter of fact I drew it to the attention of the minister last spring, and in June I urged that he study it during the summer and be ready to bring in the necessary amendments at this fall session. The government has found it possible to bring in many other items for us to deal with at this session, but this important matter has been laid over. Entirely apart from the problem of relating the War Veterans Allowance Act to the old age legislation is the plain fact which the government cannot get around that the amount of allowance is not enough for a Canadian veteran to live on. The sums of $40.41 a month for a single veteran and $70.83 a month for a married veteran are a disgrace to this country, and whatever may be done in the future about relating this legislation to the other I submit that provision should be made at this session of parliament for an increase in those two figures I have just quoted.
I remind the government that that was just as much a part of the request of the Canadian Legion as was the request for a 33-1/3 per cent increase in the disability pension. As to the attitude of the Legion on this whole question, may I suggest to the government that I have on my desk copies of several letters which have been sent to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Perhaps I should not take time to read them all, but I do want to refer to some of them. The first one I pick up was addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on November 7, 1951, and is signed by Ed S. Pratt, secretary, Winnipeg (Manitoba No. 1) Branch, Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L. The letter reads in part as follows: Dear Mr. Lapointe:
The members of Winnipeg (Manitoba No. 1) branch of the Canadian Legion were very pleased to learn from the daily press that you announced in the House of Commons that something would be done by the government during the present session of parliament to increase the basic rate of the veterans disability pension. We hope that the government will eventually see fit to implement the

suggestion advocated by the Canadian Legion in their latest brief presented before your parliamentary committee.
We regret that no mention has been made by the government of any action to be taken to raise the allowance paid to the recipients of war veterans allowance.
Mr. Pratt goes on to say that there are 900 members of this particular branch, and he indicates that many of those members are seriously affected by the rising cost of living and face difficulty in getting along on the small amount of the war veterans allowance. In the last sentence he says:
In our opinion a single recipient of war veterans allowance should not receive less than $50 a month and a married recipient not less than $100 a month.
The next one I pick up is from Mr. J. H. Larkin, secretary of the St. James Branch No. 4 of the Canadian Legion at Winnipeg. It is dated November 6, 1951, and is addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It reads: Dear Sir:
The St. James branch No. 4 of the Canadian Legion B.E.S.L. has heard with pleasure that the government has decided to increase immediately the basic rates of the veterans disability pension. We trust that the increase will be not less than the 33J per cent minimum advocated by our dominion executive.
While dealing with the disability pension is a step in the right direction, this branch would stress most strongly that the same conditions which make this increase so necessary and so urgent, apply equally to the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act. A delay in adjustment of allowances until next year will produce great additional suffering.
Mr. Larkin goes on to conclude his letter by expressing the hope that the government will act on this matter at this session. I emphasize the tone of both these letters- and I have others-to the effect that the local Legions, the men back home, really appreciate the action that has been taken with respect to disability pensions, but they are amazed that parallel action has not been announced at this session with respect to the war veterans allowance.
Another letter I have is dated Winnipeg, October 31, 1951 and signed by J. McNeil, president of the Weston and Brooklands branch of the Canadian Legion. It is addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and reads in part as follows:
Dear Sir:
We are very pleased to note that the present session of parliament intends to bring down legislation increasing the basic rate of ex-service men's disability pension, and we are anticipating this increase will conform to the request of the Canadian Legion.
It is with regret, though, that we also note there is no intention to increase the war veterans allowance at this same session, but rather to wait until the 1952 session, at which a veterans committee would be set up to consider its relation to the old age legislation.
This branch of the Canadian Legion are seriously concerned about the financial status of the so-called
The Address-Mr. Knowles
"burnt-out" pensioners and request that your department do something at the present session to alleviate their condition.
I have other letters, which I will not take time to read now, from the Winnipeg tuberculosis veterans section, from Mr. Cairns, secretary-treasurer of the Manitoba and northwestern Ontario command, from Mr. P. Johnson, chairman, pensions and rehabilitation committee of the imperial division at Winnipeg. I have others, one from the Fort Rouge branch and so on. All through these letters runs the same thought, namely that the local branches of the Legion, the men back home, who are close to the people affected, are grateful for the decision taken by the government to increase the disability pension at this session, but they cannot understand why the same action is not being taken with respect to war veterans allowance. After all, the men on war veterans allowance are just as seriously affected, if not more so, by the increase in the cost of living. In most cases the amount they have to live on is less. Surely, if the government responds to the case for the one pension to be increased, the case is equally strong that the war veterans allowance should be increased, and that the increase should be made at this session of parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes of the time at my disposal to indicate how matters work out with respect to some specific cases, particularly at this time when certain pensions are being increased. For example, the previous speaker had a good deal to say-in fact he devoted the whole of his speech to the subject-with respect to old age pensions and the removal of the means test. It is also the case that the disability pension rates are being increased. There are rumours around that there might be some change in the pension plan of the Canadian National Railways. So it is that I know quite a number of veterans who, hearing of these various changes, have dared to hope that their position might be improved. Yet I will show, by reference to cases about which I shall speak in a moment, that there are men who served this country, particularly in world war I, for whom as matters now stand there is no possibility of any improvement in their position, despite the fact that all ftiese pension arrangements are being revised at the present time.
The first case I pick up is that of a veteran living in Brooklands, Manitoba, which is a village just on the outskirts of Winnipeg. I would ask hon. members to follow the facts in this case, so far as the dollars and cents are concerned. This is a world war I veteran who at the piesent time has a disability
1324	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles pension of 30 per cent which, of course, brings in $37.50 a month. He is a married man. He has no other source of income, so he is on war veterans allowance. Because of the ceiling he receives the maximum permitted, $54.16 a month. Those two items taken together, namely his $37.50 disability pension and his veterans allowance of $54.16, come to $91.66 a month. That is the ceiling for a burnt-out pensioner. Both this man and his wife are over 70 years of age. There is now a new old age pension payable without a means test. What can they expect, because of that? Can they expect that their position will be improved to the extent of $80 a month? After all, many other people in this country, where both the man and wife are over 70 years of age, will have their positions actually improved to that extent. Persons on superannuation from private corporations or from the government service, including retired judges, senators and many other people who are 70 years and over, will have their actual cash positions improved by $80 a month.
This veteran and his wife can qualify for the old age pension. But when they get that $80 as a pension, and it is ascertained by the war veterans allowance board that they are also getting $37.50, as a veteran's disability pension-and this of course would add up to $117.50, which is in excess of the ceiling allowed by the War Veterans Allowance Act-the whole of the $54.16 war veterans allowance will be cancelled. It is true that this veteran's position will be slightly better than it is today. But it will not be better to the extent of the $80 a month that will be received by the average Canadian man and wife over 70 years of age. I submit it is grossly unfair to the veterans of this country to discriminate against them in that way.
It so happens that there is to be an increase in disability pensions. This means that under the new rates the $37.50 will become $51 a month. If he were not 70 years of age-and at this point I am speaking hypothetically, because there will be other cases like it-the fact that the $37.50 becomes $51 a month would result in a reduction of his war veterans allowance to $40.66, so that he would stay at the ceiling of $91.66 a month.
So I say that in view of the fact that, whatever their positions, most Canadians 7p years of age and over will receive the pension and have an actual increase in income to that extent, it is not fair that the one group that finds it gets an increase, but not the full value of the increase, should be the group we know as our burnt-out pensioners.
The next case with which I wish to deal is that of a veteran living in Transcona, Manitoba. This veteran is the recipient of a


Canadian National Railways pension amounting to $63.91 a month. He has nothing else, so he is drawing a war veterans allowance of $27.75. In other words his Canadian National pension and his war veterans allowance bring him, as a married man, to the ceiling of $91.66 a month. He is over 70 years of age, and his wife is 64. He can qualify for the $40 old age pension, without the means test, but his wife cannot qualify for anything. But when he gets the $40 old age pension without the means test, and the war veterans allowance board discovers that between that and his Canadian National pension he is getting a total of $103.91 a month, hon. members know what will happen to his war veterans allowance of $27.75. It will be taken away from him entirely. So on the one hand he gets $40 a month from the old age pension legislation passed at this session and, on the other, he loses $27.75 from the war veterans allowance, not only because the means test is still in the War Veterans Allowance Act but because nothing has been done at this session to moderate or to change it in any way.
I submit that when these things come into effect, and Canadians are actually up against the fact that, unlike any others, this group will have the experience of being deprived of the war veterans allowance either in whole or in part, if it is to receive the old age pension, the people of Canada will be deeply annoyed, and rightly so.
These are cases which demonstrate not only that there should be an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance, but something should be done at this session to make sure that these veterans do not have what they are given on the one hand taken away on the other.
The next case I should like to place on record is particularly tragic, when one realizes how it works out. I now refer to a married veteran living in Vancouver. He, too, is a Canadian National Railways pensioner; in fact, he comes under all three of these provisions at the present time. He is drawing the railway pension of $34.25 a month, he has an army disability pension at the rate of 5 per cent which, because he is married, works out at $6.25 a month, and he has a war veterans allowance of $51.16 a month. He gets only $51.16 because of the ceiling. Those three amounts added together mean that he is getting $91.66 a month.
This veteran has written to me expressing the thought that he had dared to hope that he had a pretty good chance of having his position improved. In fact he believed he had several chances. He is drawing the Canadian National pension, and there have

been rumours that there would be an increase or a change in that pension plan. He might benefit as a result of that change, or at least he had hoped he would. There has been the report that there was going to be an increase in the disability pension, and those reports proved to be correct, thanks to the pressure put on the government. So he dared to hope that as a result his total income of $91.66 might be increased. Then, of course, there is the old age pension of $40 a month, without the means test. This man is over 70 years of age. All told, he felt he could not lose. Perhaps he would not get them all, but he believed he had three possibilities for increases, and dared to hope that he would therefore have something more than the $91.66 a month on which to live.
What is the story? We have been trying to find out what will happen to the Canadian National Railways pensions, but have not yet been able to get any information. It does not seem, however, that anything will be done for those who are already retired. I regard that as most unfortunate. I think the government should see to it that the Canadian National Railways deals with the problem and the plight of that group of men. At the moment, at any rate, there is nothing for this veteran on that account.
What about the disability pension? There is going to be an increase in that. This man's pension is only 5 per cent, or $6.25, and under the new rates that will go up to $8.50 per month. His increase will be only $2.25. This veteran studied it out and discovered that while he will get an increase of $2.25 in his disability pension, that will immediately come off his war veterans allowance because he must stay under the ceiling of $91.66 per month. So there was nothing for him there. He gets $2.25 a month extra as of right, but he gets $2.25 less in the other cheque and his position remains exactly the same as it was, $91.66 per month.
He had not yet exhausted all the possibilities. What about the old age pension? While his wife is under 70 years of age, he is over 70 and can qualify for the $40 per month. Look at what happens when he gets $40 per month old age security. The war veterans allowance people immediately say, "There is still the $91.66 ceiling so far as war veterans allowance is concerned." So it adds up this way: His C.N.R. pension will be $34.25 a month; his disability pension under the new rate will be $8.50 per month; his old age security will be $40 per month. That makes a total of $82.75. The result will be that his war veterans allowance will be decreased from $51.16 to $8.91, because he must still remain under the ceiling of $91.66. It reminds
The Address-Mr. Knowles me of the comic entitled "Sad Sack". Here is a man full of hope that there might be an increase in the amount he receives and yet he finds that he loses out on all counts, on the C.N.R. change, on the disability pension increase and on the old age security. Why? All because of the ceiling under the War Veterans Allowance Act which says that he cannot have more than $91.66 a month.
For the government to leave cases like that over for a committee to deal with at the next session of parliament is not a responsible way to deal with such matters. I would like to read the letter, but I am not sure that all the thoughts therein are strictly parliamentary. But he tells me of his memory of the days in July, 1918, when he and others had their backs to the wall in France and were visited by the then Prime Minister of this country, who assured them on behalf of the people of Canada that all Canada was behind them to the last dollar and that nothing would be too good for them when they got back to this land. Now at his advanced age he is confronted with this situation.
I gave considerable thought to this case, as I do to all these cases. I racked my brain to see if I could think of any way under existing legislation by which this man might have another opportunity. After giving it some thought I realized that there was a possible solution. This man's wife is between 65 and 70 years of age. That means that with the old age pension given to him as of right, he being over 70 years of age, if he stays on the war veterans allowance he is limited to $91.66 a month. But if he forgoes the war veterans allowance his wife can apply for old age assistance, for the ceiling under the act passed last June is $100 a month for two people, where one is on old age assistance. In other words it is possible for this man to forgo his war veterans allowance, which would be only $8.91 per month, and thus permit his wife to collect $17.25 in the way of old age assistance, improving their position by the difference between $91.66 per month and $100 per month.
I ask hon. members to recall the many conversations they have had with these older veterans of world war I. Hon. members generally know that veterans prefer being on war veterans allowance because even though it has a means test they feel that it is something they have earned because of their service. They would rather be on war veterans allowance than on a means test old age pension. Here is a case where a veteran loses out on all these counts. The only opportunity he has to improve his position is
1326	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles to forgo the war veterans allowance so his wife may apply for as much of the means test old age pension as she can get. It must be remembered that one-half of the $17.25 she would get would be paid by the provincial government. In other words we are asking veterans like this to look to the province rather than to the federal government which has responsibility for them.
I have just picked out a few of these cases which are being sent in to me all the time, but they certainly demonstrate that this is a problem which should not be left over until next session. If it has to be dealt with in committee I submit that it is more important that it should be dealt with at this session than some of the committee work now being carried out. Some of the matters being dealt with at this session, even some of those which I favour, could wait. I am thinking of the changes being made to the Annuities Act, which I support. The need to have those changes dovetail with the old age security legislation is not as great as the need to deal at this session with the whole problem of war veterans allowances.
I have submitted thus far individual cases of veterans, both single and married. May I put in a word as well for the widows who qualify under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I just do not see how we can regard ourselves as doing our job at this session if we leave them in the position where the most they can get is $40.41 per month. I welcome the change being made in the Pension Act whereby the widow of a veteran who had 50 per cent disability or more will get $100 per month instead of $75. However, it seems to me that the spread between $100 and $40.41 per month is too great. On the one hand we have a veteran with a disability of 50 per cent or more who dies and whose widow goes on a pension of $100 per month as of right-I think she is entitled to it- and then we have the other veteran, a comrade, with a disability of only 45 per cent who dies and whose widow gets nothing as of right. If she can meet the means test and other conditions under the War Veterans Allowance Act the most she can get is $40.41 per month.
I realize the principle that is involved, but surely something should be done at this session to narrow that spread between $100 in the one case and $40.41 in the other. I welcome the announcement that widows who qualify for a full pension under the Pension Act will have it increased from $75 to $100 per month, but I urge the government to do something at this session to raise that other figure. I have here a case of a widow in Winnipeg who was married in 1906 and whose husband served in both wars. Most of his
IMr Knowles.]

active service was in world war I, but he served in both wars. She was married to him through both of those periods, but because he had a disability of considerably less than 50 per cent the best she can get is the burnt-out pension under the War Veterans Allowance Act, which is only $40.41 a month.
I am simply pointing out that there is too big a spread between the $100 paid under the Pension Act-I approve of it-and the $40.41 which is the most a widow in these circumstances is able to get. Furthermore, a widow can receive that only if she is 55 years of age or over and is able to satisfy the terms of the means test set out in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I feel that this whole question is just as important as was the old age pension question, just as important as is the question of amending the disability pension provisions. I think it is a lot more important than the question of overhauling the Annuities Act. I think it is more important than some other matters that are being considered by various committees sitting at the present time. I urge most strongly that this matter be dealt with by the government at this session of parliament. I am satisfied that others, as this debate goes on, will continue to make the same plea I am making today, and we are still hoping that it is not falling on deaf ears. I know that so far the government seem satisfied with what they have done. They think it is enough to deal with the Pension Act at this session, but so far as the veterans affected and the local branches of the Canadian Legion are concerned, they want action on this matter at this session of parliament.
I was quite interested in the interjections the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made the other day when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) was speaking on the question of making changes at this session in the War Veterans Allowance Act. At page 1243 of Hansard for November 21 the minister made an interjection when the hon. member was asking that the Liberal members be given freedom to vote on the subamendment as they might wish. The interjection was as follows:


Mr. Martin:: There is nothing but freedom in the
ranks of the government members.
A little later, at page 1244, when the hon. member for Lake Centre was pursuing this matter, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a few more interjections and one of them was a question already mentioned today by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). It reads as follows:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend suggest that
when any member of this house comes to register his vote, he does not use that privilege in accordance with his best judgment in the circumstances?

If the Minister of National Health and Welfare, speaking for himself or the government, meant what he said in those interjections it means that government supporters in this house are free to vote on this question according to their best judgment. I suggest that the minister has, if I may use language that we all well understand, put Liberal members on the spot. He says they are free to vote according to their best judgment. The proposition before them, when the vote is eventually taken, is that something should be done to increase the amount of the war veterans allowance, and I hope they will exercise their best judgment, which surely calls for a vote for the subamendment. May I remind them and also the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the last time a similar suggestion was made was on August 27, 1946, as may be found at page 5431 of Hansard for that year. On that occasion an amendment was before the house having to do with a subsidy with respect to milk, and the debate had waxed quite warm. The result was that the then minister of reconstruction and supply, now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), rose and said to the house:
I suggest that the vote should be a free expression regardless of party.
Then there were two or three other exchanges and questions back and forth until it was finally made clear just before the vote was taken that it was to be a free vote, and that members on the government side were permitted to vote as they wished. The result was that the amendment, which was moved from this corner of the house, was carried. Members expressed their best judgment on the issue then before the house. Either the Minister of National Health and Welfare means the same thing the Minister of Trade and Commerce meant on August 27, 1946 or he does not. If he does not mean the same thing, of course it does not mean anything; but if he meant the same thing, if he meant that members are free to exercise their best judgment, I suggest there is only one way that best judgment can be exercised, and that is by voting for the subamendment for an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance. I hope all members will vote that way and that we shall get action on this matter at this session.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, as is usual and I think proper in this debate there has been discussion of a wide variety of subjects, but the primary question before the house is the one dealt with by the
The Address-Mr. Harkness last speaker, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). It reads as follows:
Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance.
I support the subamendment wholeheartedly, and I think a wide variety of reasons can be put forward for everyone in the house to support it. As the last speaker has indicated, I hope that a large number of those who support the government will find themselves able to vote for the amendment to the amendment. I think it is a cause for shame to the government and to Canada that the scale of war veterans allowance payments was not raised long ago. War veterans allowance recipients are amongst those who have been hurt most by the rising cost of living during the last year or so. In my own province I know they are worse off than the recipients of the present old age pension. Old age pensioners in the province of Alberta receive $50 a month, while recipients of war veterans allowance receive $40 and a few odd cents a month. They are nearly $10 worse off than the old age pensioners. The same thing is true in a number of other provinces.
It seems to me that the dominion government has been shirking its responsibility in that it has allowed these veterans, who have no other source of income, to remain in a worse position than the old age pensioners under the combined pensions paid to them by the dominion and the provinces. Like the last member who spoke, I have had a large number of letters on this subject. I am not going to take the time of the house to read any of them. Many are extremely pitiful. They presented cases which made one really wonder what one could write in reply to people with the stories of privation and hardship indicated in their letters. In many cases war veterans allowance recipients are in greater need of an increase in the scale of payment than disability pensioners. On the whole I think the disability pensioners have not been as badly off as the war veterans allowance recipients.
However, as a result of pressure on the part of veterans organizations and the pressure of public opinion, crystallized to quite an extent by representations made in the house by a large number of members, the government have seen fit to introduce legislation at this session to increase the basic rate of disability pension. I fail to understand why they did not introduce legislation at the same time to increase the rate of war veterans allowance. It could have been done very readily, and

The Address-Mr. Harkness it should have been done. What they have announced is that a committee will be set up at the next session to study the matter. One thing I think the committee and the government should have very much in mind is that whatever increase is granted to war veterans allowance recipients should be made retroactive at least to the present time, and in any event to the same time the increase in disability pensions becomes effective.
One of the difficult matters with regard to war veterans allowance is that the amount of income permitted to be earned or secured in any other way is not nearly sufficient. The total amount of income allowed a recipient of the war veterans allowance should, without doubt, be raised. Many of these men who find a small job earn more than the allowable amount of extra income. In many cases they do not realize that is so until it is too late; and when the officials of the war veterans allowance board discover this situation they cut off a portion of the war veterans allowance until this extra amount is paid back. When that happens these people get into truly difficult circumstances and find it almost impossible to live. This could be overcome by increasing the total amount of allowable income for the recipients of war veterans allowance. At the moment the ceiling on total income for a single man on war veterans allowance is. $610 a year, and for a married man $1,100 a year. In the case of a single man this means that the amount he can earn above the allowance is $125, and in the case of a married man it is $250.
So far as disability pensions are concerned this matter is going to assume even greater importance with the increase in the basic rate of pension. Many drawing small disability pensions are drawing war veterans allowance also. What is going to happen in their case? Unless this allowable limit is raised the increase they receive under their disability pension is going to be deducted from their war veterans allowance cheque, and they are not going to be one cent further ahead. I believe that is something which should be corrected immediately. We still have plenty of time for the government to bring in some provision at this session to make certain that situation will not come to pass.
For several years I have advocated that the total allowable income for the recipients of war veterans allowance should be increased. I feel it should be increased to the level of the income tax exemption, In other words, before the allowance is cut down the single man should have a total income of $1,000, and the married man a total income of $2,000. If he is able, in spite of his disability, to do odd jobs and pick up a few hundred dollars


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start my remarks with the customary gesture of congratulating the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address. My remarks are all the more sincere in the case of the first, my friend the hon. member for Beau-harnois, because I have come to know him, and since his arrival in this house he has contributed handsomely to our debates and the work of the different committees to which he belongs. I read his speech while I was abroad, because I had Hansard sent by air mail daily. This might be the reason which will lead me to conclude in a moment that I think this house ought to assume that we all appreciate the speeches of the movers and seconders of the addresses. We should all assume that the governments, whatever party is in power, will choose good men to introduce and second the motion. Once and for all, we should assume that they are good and we should stop spending fifteen minutes or so complimenting them, although they are deserving of it.
I have calculated that the speakers who have taken part in this debate have spent about three hundred minutes, about five hours, in complimenting the mover and the seconder. I believe we should assume that these gentlemen acquit themselves well of the task which has been entrusted to them, and we might discontinue this practice. As I said a moment ago, it may be that I am influenced by the fact that I had to pay to read these speeches. I asked my office in Quebec to send me Hansard every day by air mail. The first and second times I received it, I was a bit discouraged, to find that there was about $1.25 worth of stamps on the envelope. I do not mean that all of us do not make good speeches or do not contribute to the debates in an eloquent way, but frankly I wondered whether I had received my money's worth. In the meantime I must say, before anybody else attempts to do it, that I do not believe today's Hansard will be any better because I took part in the debate or that it will be any more worth the $1.25 in stamps that was on the ones I received while abroad. But I say frankly that I think we would save probably five or six hours or more in our debates
The Address-Mr. Picard if we did away with the practice of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address. In this case I must state that I was really pleased to see the way the new hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon) behaved. I followed his activities in this house, and I thought his speech was good and up to expectations. The same remark applies to the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), whom I have not the pleasure of knowing so well, but whose speech also was good.
I do not intend to follow the example of the two previous speakers who dealt mainly with the subamendment. I propose to touch on a few of the items that are mentioned in the speech from the throne, particularly on those referred to by most hon. members since this debate started. One of the most important is of course the high cost of living. That is one of the most serious problems of the day, and it is a world problem. World economists have been at a loss to find a remedy not only in Canada but throughout the world. During the course of my visit abroad, particularly in England, in France and in Germany, I met some gentlemen who were supposed to be acquainted with the problem. Some of them were professors of political economy and of social economy. They see with great anxiety the trend of rising prices throughout the world, especially on the continent. As one of them was pointing out to me, before the war there used to be set rules governing the rising cost of living. We all used to attribute it to inflation. Inflation was described as being caused by a great supply of currency or buying power in the hands of the people and a scarcity of goods, mostly consumer goods. Often it was attributed to laxity in the rules or regulations concerning credit, speculation on a large scale, and so on.
At this time throughout most countries of the world, except possibly in Greece where there was real inflation in the way of too much currency being put on the market, generally it cannot be said-and this is true especially as to Canada-that the government has issued too much currency or has financed its works program through the issuance of new currency. In fact during the war many of us complained that the income taxes were stiff and high because the government had acted wisely in arranging to have at least 50 per cent of the cost of war paid on a day to day basis and the other 50 per cent financed by loans or as an accumulation of debt. While not contesting the wisdom of this policy, some of us complained bitterly when we had to face the period of the year in which we had to pay those taxes. Yet

The Address-Mr. Picard these taxes were paid cheerfully by the Canadian people in time of war. It cannot be said that too much currency has been put on the market for this purpose or that too much of our war effort was financed by the issuance of new money.
Another cause of inflation that did not exist during the last war was the issuance of currency without relation to productivity. In the present set-up in Canada I do not see that the amount of currency issued is out of proportion to the productivity of the country. Some people have stated that there is much more money available than the proportion of increase in the productivity of the country warranted. Yet there is no lack of consumer goods. Some hon. members even applauded when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance stated that we had plenty of goods available. That is true. There is a large amount of money in circulation. The people have a lot of money to spend. But there is also a large amount of goods available; so much so that inventories are extremely large. In fact they are probably larger than they have been in a long time; and this situation has gone to the point that some industries have even curtailed their production. That is another cause of inflation-the lack of consumer goods, which is regularly or commonly considered as being a cause of inflation or of rising prices-that we do not find in these present circumstances.
The rise in the cost of living can therefore hardly be attributed to inflation, because we do not see what economists have described as the main signs of coming or actual inflation. Yet prices are rising. But they are not only rising in Canada, as I said a moment ago. It is no consolation to say that prices are rising elsewhere, but I do so to point out that this is a world problem and not just a Canadian problem.
By referring to the speeches that have been made, I have tried to find helpful suggestions. Some people have talked of controls. I myself was at one time inclined to think that controls would be good. It seemed to be a logical conclusion that controls would do good. In these circumstances, when we can determine that the rise in the cost of living is world-wide, I wonder if any controls applied today would bring about a remedy. Some other speakers have pointed out what has happened in countries where controls have been tried. In England and elsewhere controls have been tried, and the cost of living is still rising, going higher and higher.
During wartime controls were accepted; and Canadians behaved better than did the
people in most other countries of the world in this regard. But to be effective the controls must be approved and accepted, and the people must co-operate in their application. Could we get that co-operation in time of peace? Controls have been tried in other countries, but they were not effective. During the war controls were tried in the United States, and they did not prove to be easy of application. There is no use trying to apply controls exclusively by force. Our neighbours to the south tried to apply a particular law that was passed with noble intention, but it could not be applied. I refer to the Volstead Act, providing for prohibition. A huge amount of money was spent but it could not be enforced, and it led to gangsterism and many other evils. Can we apply controls in times of peace when we and the people in other countries seem not to be prepared to accept them as gladly as in time of war? I think we must contend that at the moment controls would not meet with popular approval. But people may, at times, be inclined to think, as I was myself, that they might be a remedy. I think they might be a remedy if the causes were local. But if we consider the situation throughout the world, even if we applied controls here I do not think it would remedy the situation at all.
In this regard I was interested to see what was the attitude of the official opposition. Last year I think they approved the idea of controls; this year they limited their approval to a certain category of goods or projects. I have here an extract from the Winnipeg Free Press which states:
In the last session of parliament Mr. Drew voted with the C.C.F. in proposing an open-ended system of controls. In the present session Mr. Drew's first concern was to denounce the same C.C.F. policy and to deny, over and over again, that he favoured anything like a complete system of controls. Where does this strategic retreat leave Mr. Drew today? It leaves him advocating controls only on materials entering the defence program. But this cannot be construed, by the widest latitude, to mean an attack on the cost of living since defence materials do not in general enter into the cost of living.
It can be said the fact that we are going in for war expenditures put more money into the financial stream of the country, and that it might help to prevent inflation by putting controls on war materials rather than general controls. I do not agree with that. When I started to study the question I thought that controls might be a good policy. I have now come to the conclusion, especially after travelling abroad, that under the present general conditions controls would not improve the situation. They may be tried on certain things. It may be true there. They may be tried on food; they may be tried on consumer goods, but will they affect the whole situation? We are governed by the cost

The Address-Mr. Picard
of our imports and by the price offered to us for our exports. These are the two things that regulate the high cost of living and the prices of many commodities.
Some people talk about the farmer getting too high a profit. They try to attribute the rise in the cost of food to the agricultural class. I think that is entirely erroneous. There is one sure thing: these prices cannot be attributed to the excessive net profits of the farmers. Their net incomes are lower today than they were during the war years when most of these products were lower in price. On the other hand that cannot be said of industrial corporations or of financial corporations, where you do not see the same decline in net incomes as you see with respect to the farmers. The same applies to the intermediary, or shall I call him the middleman, the packing industry, those who are slaughtering, packaging and distributing meat and agricultural products, and also the large milling companies. When you see the balance sheets and reports of some of these companies you do not see that their net profit is down in comparison with the net income of the farmers. Yet it can be said that the farmer is not in such a poor condition now. His net income is not quite as high as during the war, but it is still much higher than it was in prewar years. The least that can be said is that he has a more decent kind of living. I am sure nobody here would want him to revert to the net income that he had before the war.
If the condition is looked into fairly no one can suggest sincerely that the high cost of food can be attributed to excessive net profits made by the farmers. Even if they get more they have to pay more for commodities and services, and though they may have a better profit than they had before the war, they do not get as high a profit now as they got during the war. As I said before, the large corporations are maintaining their scale of profits in a better way.
To curb the inflationary effects of too large a supply of money in the hands of the people the government has already tried to apply some remedies. They have limited credit, and now we are flooded every day with representations from automobile distributors and vendors of this and that to the effect that because half the cost has to be paid immediately on purchase and the balance distributed over 12 months, it ruins their business. Yet the function of this provision is to limit the amount of money the people can spend on consumer goods, or to prevent excess purchases by people who cannot pay immediately. The idea is to put our economy in a better position and allow our people to
spend only what they earn. There is also a limit put on the write-offs by the big corporations, an increase in the interest rates and an increase in the corporate taxes. All these are measures complying with the traditional advice on what should be done when we are threatened with inflation. These are measures that have been devised long ago by economists. They have not fully succeeded in curbing the inflationary high cost of living, but they are steps in the right direction. In this regard it may be interesting in a short while to see the results of the new policies announced by Finland, which are exactly the opposite of what every economist up to now has advised. They lowered the rate on borrowed money; they facilitated spending. They have increased salaries. In an effort to curb inflation or the high cost of living they have taken exactly the steps which up to now were considered conducive to inflation. It will be interesting to see in a short while whether or not that leads them in the right direction, but it is an entirely new and revolutionary step in so far as conducting financial matters in a conservative way has been considered to be advisable. I saw these people at work during the past summer. They are energetic; they are hard, tough people. They work well. They are keen in what they do. They are not going in for any kind of entertainment as you see it in other countries. They are all working seriously and facing up to their problems. They are building apartments for the working people, something of which my hon. friends say we do not have enough. They have paid off nearly all their war debt to Russia. They are the only country who have paid off their debts of the first war. They are now trying this new step, the result of which should be most interesting to see in a short while.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is world-wide, and can be coped with only on a world-wide basis and an international plane since, as I said a moment ago, the cost of our imports and what we get for our exports regulate the cost of the different commodities in our country. Only when the nations of the world get together and devise new means can we hope to have an effective tackling of the problem. I do not want to bring any depressing ideas into the debate, but after talking to many people in different countries who are supposed to know about it, nobody seems to be doing much different than we are doing. Everybody is experimenting with this or that system, and the prices go up. The only thing we can envisage in this house is that this government has done its best, and that no constructive, effective criticism has come from the opposition side. They have rightly criticized the increase in the cost of living but no

The Address-Mr. Picard effective, constructive criticism has come from the other side as to how to remedy it. What has been advocated by them has not been considered by most economists up to now to be the wise thing at this time. It is easy to criticize; it is not so easy to suggest a remedy.
I now want to go on to another item, Mr. Speaker, namely the old age security program and the old age security bill that was passed in this house a short while ago. It extended, shall I say, the scope of our social security program to the point that those from 65 on will be provided for. Those from 65 to 70 will be provided for if they can prove their need. The others will all get it as a matter of right. This point has been criticized by some people even here. It has been said that it would be much better to increase the pension of those who are in need than to give it to everybody. Well, I do not think the people understand the matter thoroughly, because when you give $40 to everybody you must realize that you bring help to a vast number of people who, while they are not entirely destitute, are bordering on destitution and are in need of help. There are a large number of people throughout Canada for whom this $40, when added to the little they have, will mean security. It is also an encouragement, shall I say, to save. We have heard the argument from hon. members in the C.C.F.-and it is a proper argument, which would apply even to those from 65 to 69 years -that the means test discourages savings.
Under the old system, if a man reached the age of 70 and had nothing, he received a pension. If he had looked to the future and had saved a little money-not much, perhaps, but a little-he was prevented from getting this $40. The new system will cover quite a considerable number of cases throughout the country-where people may not be entirely destitute, but do not have sufficient to live a decent life. Therefore I suggest that those who criticize this move as being unwise do not fully understand the situation. In an article appearing in the Gazette of November 16 they quote from a speech made over the radio by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in which he said:
The government's program is intended to ensure that Canadians, when they grow old, have the prospect-not of charity-but of independence and a decent livelihood.
They go on to say that the program would cost too much. It is always the same thing. Then they go on to criticize the fact that the minister said-
We can all take pride in the fact that Canada Is the first nation to pay a full-scale universal pension without a means test.
They criticize the observation by the minister. These people really do not understand the situation at all. These are the same people

who every day talk about the necessity of curtailing communism and doing the things which will prevent the spread of communism, During the last month I visited a country which is under a communist regime. I did not go there to see whether they were right or wrong in having done what they did; nor did I go there to see if, at the time they did it, they acted wisely. I was just trying to And out what conditions are in that country. I am referring to Yugoslavia.
In that country I saw things of which I approved. I approved of the way some things were done-but I would not want to say too much along that line for fear some of my friends might say that I have communist leanings. However, one day I did say to a government official, "You are doing a job that some people do not understand. Much of it is commendable. The way you gained power is another thing; the way you curtail political liberty according to our western standards is another thing. But as to the ways you have taken to better the fate of the masses, I think many of the things you are trying to do are in the right direction. However, when I go back to my country I will be more than ever convinced that we should bring about reforms, all kinds of reforms we need, so that our population will never be tempted to have recourse to the communist form of government." I say that because, while it leaves to human beings personal liberties, it takes away from them their political liberties and their right to choose one form or another of government. It reduces them to a state of inferiority so far as their choice of rulers is concerned and so far as approval or disapproval of their policies is concerned.
This is why I suggest it would be unwise to criticize any reform or any government that brings about social security in our country, because if there is one way of preventing the communist form of government, it will not be by the institution of rules and regulations saying that the communist party is outlawed, or that it should be driven underground, but rather by bringing to the masses in this country the means that will give them a decent standard of living. In this way they will not be tempted to have recourse to communism. While it must be admitted that in some countries it might have brought about better conditions than those that prevailed under their former system of government, in Canada we have improved the condition of the masses gradually and are going to continue to improve it; and it will serve as a safeguard against any loss of our political liberties.
I would not have time this evening to discuss all the reforms that may be needed in

our country, but I strongly approve those that bring about social security and old age security. That is one of the most important fields in which good can be done for the masses. The time has gone when the masses of the world could be held in ignorance, or could be abused. There is temptation everywhere in the world to listen to the advice of those who would offer panaceas and remedies, but those remedies are the ones we do not want in Canada. We know that the way to keep the people of Canada more satisfied is to give them a better life, to give them security in life, while maintaining our democratic form of government.
If the people feel that governments understand their needs, and if a larger and larger number of people can have a decent standard of living, we will be further away from the methods of communism.
It is all very well to say that all people are born free and that all have the same opportunity. Less than two hundred years ago the French revolution attacked many of the evils which existed at that time, and much is owed by humanity to the Encyclopedists and those who helped to overthrow the old regime. Man from then on was recognized as being equal to man, in principle. But from the moment of his birth one man is not equal to another man. He may be born of a father who is sick. He may be born of people who are intelligent, or of people who are not. He may be born of people who have money, and who have succeeded in life, or of people without means. Although in principle man is equal to man, life immediately sets in motion factors which make sure that there is no real equality.
Then life goes on, and one man with the same work and application may succeed while another may fail. Some religious people will say that those who succeeded had the help of Providence. Others will say they succeeded through chance. Others will give some other reason. But there is one imponderable element, which can be hardly known in the life of every human being, and which brings about inequality. For such cases a program of social security is needed. For such cases we are taking a step in the right direction when we do what the minister has done in connection with old age pensions.
In this regard I would not be consistent if I did not tell the minister that I am quite disappointed to see that invalids and the infirm are not looked after properly in the new legislation. Good reasons will no doubt be given for this. In his speech the minister brought forth the argument, which I did not think was as strong as the rest of his speech, that most of these people are covered by the new regulations because they are 65 years of
The Address-Mr. Picard age or over. I see people in my own constituency, and I know they exist in others, for whom something more than the present regulations is required. I think the time has come when they should be given some allowance. The minister said there were very few of these who do not come within the law. Well, if there are so few, why not bring about a remedy? It would not cost very much. I gave the figures to the house on an earlier occasion, in another debate, as to the cost in other countries, so I shall not repeat them at this time. I do repeat that in my opinion it is high time something more was done in this regard.
As I should like now to turn to another subject, perhaps I might be permitted to continue at eight o'clock.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-Philippe Picard: Mr. Speaker, as I was leaving the chamber this afternoon after the house took recess someone asked me what I meant when I said that I approved of some of the things I had seen in Yugoslavia. I do not of course approve of the form of government they have there; but I found that since 1948, when they broke with Russia, there has been considerably more personal liberty, although this may not apply to political liberty as we understand it in our democracies. Considerable effort has been made to bring about a betterment in the position of the masses of the people. I do not agree with many of the things that have been done, but I have been favourably impressed by others. While it may not be from sympathy, the fact is that today they are friends of the west and as such deserve whatever help the United Nations or the United States may give them. This help would be used against our eventual common enemy should ever there be a clash, because the leaders there, and I talked with many, while not pro-west are decidedly anti-soviet union. While they will certainly never revert to our form of government, they are far away from the Russian form.
I consider that the experiment going on there constitutes the third application of the ideas or principles of Marx. We had as the first application the mild British version which originated with the Fabians and which was translated afterward into the policies of the Labour party. Then we had the extreme Russian application of Marxist principles that evolved into state capitalism and Stalinist
1334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Picard dictatorship. It is possible that the experiment going on in Yugoslavia may prove to be the go-between and a third form of Marxism because these people are sincerely Marxist in their beliefs, but seem to me to be getting away more and more from the Stalinist form of communism. Of course I do not accept those principles because I am a Liberal and a democrat, but the fact is that the national front government there is finding approval to a certain extent and there is no general movement against it. At any rate I will expand more on my views on this subject outside of this house, or on another occasion.
I had about reached my next point, our share in the United Nations. I think Canada should go on giving the greatest possible co-operation to the United Nations, and that we should carry on those policies. We should try to avoid being ruled by one nation and make sure that the smaller nations have a say in the United Nations and are not dominated by any one country. I contend that simply because they may be the strongest member of the United Nations, that organization should not reflect the vacillating foreign policies of the United States, if I may call them that. In that respect I should like to quote briefly from an article in the Citizen which was brought to my attention the other night entitled "Negotiation, a Two-Edged Sword." If a truce has been reached in Korea so much the better, because it shows it is possible that we may finally come to an agreement there. This article reads:
As western strength grows, It does not mean that a peaceful world will come automatically. On the contrary, the danger of war may increase because of this growing strength, unless the west's expanding power is used to negotiate a settlement.
Then the article quotes a speech which Mr. Eden had made in Paris before the United Nations:
I do not believe that in any dispute one party is 100 per cent a black villain, and the other 100 per cent snow white ... All men are fallible, and peace can only rest on mutual forbearance and restraint.
I believe that Canada's policies should be directed toward establishing better understanding between the east and the west. We should not give wholehearted support to everything contained in United States propaganda, but on the other hand we should watch carefully whatever comes from the east. I think under the guidance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) our representatives have done well, and I trust that the Canadian government will continue to be careful and not follow the trend that was shown in the past of accepting everything that came from Great Britain by switching across the border and swallowing everything that comes from the


United States, no matter how much we may admire what that country is trying to do to retain democratic institutions for the west and to help the nations of Europe to remain free.
Our participation in the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization implies certain obligations of a military nature. I contend that our policies should be directed first of all to the defence of Canada. When the first incident occurred in Korea there were some in this house who contended that we should send to Korea all the help we had available. The government acted more wisely and decided that we should train a special contingent and not take away from Canada what small protection we may have had. There are some people today who advocate that we should send whatever men we have available, or even enlist more, to the European theatre of war. In this respect the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) seems to have adopted a different attitude from that taken by his party last year. I agree when he says that our policy should be directed toward the formation of strong mobile units that could be moved easily and quickly from one point to another rather than to send all our strength to Europe. That is somewhat in contradiction to what other members of his party advocated last year, when they complained that we were not sending enough to Korea.
Above all Canadians should think first of their own country. While we are committed to assisting in the defence of Europe along with other members of NATO, we should consider that the first line of defence may lie in our own country and our first duty is to provide for our own defence. This is the best way in which we may help in the defence of human rights and democracy. We should not forget that any nation should think of itself first of all.
We are committed in conjunction with the other United Nations in Korea and with the north Atlantic powers in Europe, and up to now we have done our share and we are willing to continue although whatever a country does for a general cause may not necessarily be given recognition. I can remember not long ago after the second war, in which we had done more than our share, when the United Nations were organized our neighbours below the Bio Grande were given a seat in the security council, which we were refused; and it is a sure thing their war effort was not comparable to ours. But these are things that have happened, and gratitude is no more to be expected in international than in national politics. At this moment more than ever I

think Canadians should consider what are the interests of their own country. We have our Atlantic and Pacific shores to defend. If war ever breaks out we may be subjected to a submarine menace that will be much worse than it was when the Germans controlled the Atlantic with a few submarines. The Russians evidently have more. We have none, and it is no secret that the allies cannot cope with that menace at the present time. Everybody knows it.
This is a field which should be investigated by the government before we commit all our strength overseas. It is necessary for us to build up our air defences for use in Canada and not send everything abroad, because nobody can tell now where the front line will be. It may well be here in Canada. With the development of air power an attack may come from the north and we may be among the first to be hit. I heard a most distressing and discouraging opinion from one European, which shows some of the ideas they have over there. He said: "You are quite lucky. In the first attack you will probably get about nine atomic bombs and some of your cities at any rate will be through with them. In our case we will not be considered that important. We will just get 500-tonners. As in the last war we will have our wounded, and our buildings will be down; but we will have to live through it because the Russians will want to keep us while on the other hand in trying to invade the United States they will fly over your country and in passing by they will drop a few on you."
One way or the other I think we might very well be in the front line. Nobody can predict where the front line will be. The first incident took place in Korea. The next one may well be in the Middle East, and nobody knows where the third attack will come, in Europe or on us if they ever decide to do so. I doubt that they will, but that is another matter that will take too long to go into. However, if the blow ever should come it might very well fall directly on us; then we would be the first line of defence. Therefore I think the government, so far as their defence policy is concerned, should consider Canadian interests first and train and keep at home as far as possible all the air squadrons necessary to defend our country. Like everyone else I know what we hear here and there about what is being done by way of constructing radar chains throughout the country. That is one thing, but once you know the enemy is coming you must have somebody prepared to meet them.
I think it is time we knew exactly, in definite terms, what is the government's
The Address-Mr. Picard policy for the defence of the country; not only our commitments abroad but how we intend to defend our country, because we do not know where these people will strike if they ever decide to do so.
That brings us to the much greater consideration of whether they will. I am one who said a few years ago that I thought Russia wanted twenty years of peace; perhaps of cold war, but not of shooting war, in order that they may bring to a higher level the standard of living of her population. I stated then that I thought she would not provoke a definite incident which might ignite the powder. I may be wrong. A lot of people think I am. A lot of people think Russia will strike any day, within a year, two years or three years. Personally I still do not believe that such an element in Russia will be the one to dominate the policies of the Politburo. I still think they will want to continue the cold war, try to raise the standard of living of their population and bring about a higher degree of productivity.
Then with the manpower they possess, and with which we can hardly cope, they will be able to attack provided they wait long enough and do not act on the spur of the moment as did Hitler, or consult astrologers and so on. I believe that guided by hard tactics alone they will wait until the moment they believe they will have a chance to win a victory. There are those who fear that the people on the other side may provoke an incident. I hope the reason and strength of mind of the people of the democracies will not bring about that situation.
I think that sooner or later, and the sooner the better, we should have a statement from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on the general defence policies of the country, not something piecemeal or a statement made outside of the country.
No matter what has been said, I am one of those who think such statements should be made in the house. I believe there should be enough liberty of speech in the house- and I think there is-that when a member feels the way I do on this question he ought to say so. No matter how much one may think the government may be better than its opponents, I think it is not to the advantage of parliament or of democratic institutions when such things are done as the minister, whom I respect and like personally, did by a slip of the tongue, if we may call it that, in announcing policies abroad rather than in the house.
This house has gone through many attacks. Parliament in general and our democratic
1336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Picard institutions have been attacked as being inefficient. How can they be efficient if important matters of policy are declared outside of parliament rather than in parliament and before they have been discussed in parliament? I think it is high time that the general scheme of our defence policy should be voiced in the house, not in vaguely worded statements or uncompromising generalities but the complete details of our defence policies as they concern not the interests of the world at large but above all the interests of Canada. Our first duty is to Canada. Our first duty to the world is to keep Canada free and democratic.
It has been my privilege to come back from abroad after visiting other countries. I visited the Scandinavian countries and Germany, and spent some time in Yugoslavia. There is nothing better than to come back home and realize the value of our institutions. If we want to keep our institutions we have to keep them alive. We have to have respect for our institutions if we want them to live, if we want people to have confidence in them. Members of parliament should not be elected only as official applauders of the leader of the opposition or the prime minister, but as men who can voice their own opinions, who are consulted and who can give their opinions, having in mind of course those they wish to keep in power, in whom they have more confidence. Once this is established, then when important matters arise members who believe in the political theories of a party support the action of the government when it is a matter of government policy.
They do not always like all these policies, but because they would rather have this government than any other group in which they have less confidence they support them. Once this has been done every member is free and has the duty to express his views. I said somewhere else that I thought it was a pity that in our debate on external affairs more people did not take part. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) challenged people on this side to speak. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), a respected gentleman with a knowledge of international affairs, rose to the occasion and made a valuable contribution to the debate. On this side of the house he was the only other member besides the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who took part in the debate. I do not want to bring about a competition between parties as to which can take the longer period of time speaking, but I think it is the duty of every member of the house to voice his opinions. I do not think we are


in good standing when we criticize people because they prolong a debate. Some of our friends seem to believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gets up too often. I approve of that. He gets up because he has something to say, and I think no time is lost when somebody expresses an opinion in the house.
Of course I would be the last to say that we should adopt the United States system where they have a Democratic party half of which votes for the government and half against, and a Republican party that does not know whether or not it approves its leadership. I do not want that; but I claim that every member in the house should have the respect of the house, and policies should be announced in the house. I believe there should be greater and greater respect amongst parliamentarians, because if parliamentarians do not respect one another and if the government does not show all respect due to parliamentarians, the people will not respect them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a partisan. I shall continue to be a partisan of the government, because I believe more in this government than in any other group now before me.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Louis-Philippe Picard: To answer that would open a long discussion for which I have no time left now. I should like to answer the hon. member by referring him to my previous speeches explaining my votes and give him a further explanation when the opportunity presents itself in other debates.
There are times in one's life, however, when one has to decide between the ideas that one entertains and those of his party. The party or the government arrives at certain decisions and gives reasons for them. There may be times when you have to stop maintaining your own views and vote in a certain way on a given issue because you believe in the general program and policies of a party. If you vote against the government you may bring into power other people in whom you have no confidence at all. I will admit that at times I will vote for governmental decisions not so much because I like them but because I believe that if I vote against the government I shall vote in favour of another group in whose ideas or in whose men I have less confidence than in those with whom I am associated. That is a rule for all members of parliament.
To revert to our defence policy I think it is of the greatest importance to man the defences of Canada, and to look into our program for NATO and other international

organizations in the light of our own strategic position. As I said, our first duty is to Canada, then to NATO and the other organizations that may contribute to the preservation of democracy. As to our democratic parliamentary institutions, the best way to preserve them is to ensure the respect of parliament by the government in order that the people at large may respect it.
(Translation):


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my most sincere congratulations to the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) for the splendid speech he has just made in this house. I must admit he is truly an authority on the matters he has brought to the knowledge of his colleagues, and I congratulate him especially for his frankness and his adherence to the party to which he remains loyal in spite of the fact that sometimes he does not share the views of 'his party.
I can hardly omit mentioning the efforts made by the Speaker of this house to increase his knowledge of the French language.
In my maiden speech in the house I paid tribute to him for making it a duty, in all circumstances, to give the French language its rightful place in debates on the various matters brought to the attention of members of parliament.
Since, although it may be said that he is no longer of school age, the Speaker has taken lessons in the French language. I was both astonished and happy to find that, although he had but little time to learn it, he could speak fluently in my mother tongue.
This gesture should set an example to all our fellow citizens who, I am sure, must feel more and more convinced of the necessity of learning and using both official languages of the country.
I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both have acquitted themselves admirably of this task.
I want to stress certain remarks made by the hon. member for Beauharnois about the gentleman who, with the assistance of his ministers, directs the destinies of Canada.
The eloquent member for Beauharnois has laid special emphasis, and rightly so, upon the firm determination of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to ensure national unity, a determination against which will beat in vain the efforts of certain narrow-minded
The Address-Mr. Dupuis fanatics who wish to appropriate for themselves alone the rights and privileges granted by the British North America Act and which they hold in contempt.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister, as I have already mentioned, will go down in history as a champion of legitimate collective and individual liberties and of national understanding, from sea to sea, within the confines of this great and now autonomous nation of ours.
At the risk of offending certain so-called ultra-loyalists who, fortunately, are becoming fewer and fewer and who have failed to understand what this autonomy means to the descendants of those who cleared the land in Canada, whether they be of English or French origin, I am not afraid to state that our country has reached its maturity and that, as such, it can now stride forward alone towards the bountiful future it has in store.
The prophecy of another compatriot, a most illustrious one, to the effect that the twentieth century would be Canada's, is already beginning to materialize.
Thanks to God, we have and we are developing natural resources and basic products that place us among the very first producing countries in the world.
But of what use would all this wealth be if we failed to take the necessary means to apply these resources methodically, if conditions were to become such as to paralyse all individual effort and initiative?
When we consider world conditions today, we can safely say that living conditions in Canada compare favourably with those in other countries.
The political party that now manages the affairs of this country, and has managed them longer than any other party, has always striven to establish social and economic conditions that are the envy of many other nations. Thanks to the progressive spirit which characterizes this party, the house has been able to enact social legislation to protect the workers and the underprivileged.
In fact, who will deny the huge benefits accruing to the majority of our fellow countrymen by the enactment of such laws as those on family allowances, unemployment insurance, pensions for the blind, not to mention the pending legislation on behalf of the disabled and others whose permanent disability prevents them from earning a living.
I recall th-at for many years the leaders and supporters of the official opposition party fought endlessly against these social reforms. They came round to them after having realized their beneficial effects, unless it was through wisdom, in the hope of being able to win the confidence of the electors.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
No matter which of those reasons prevailed, the fact remains that some of those beneficent measures to ensure security to the groups concerned1 were necessary in this country, first as a duty and then to offset communistic propaganda, as well as the effect its wonderful promises might have had on the masses.
Workers do not have the advantage of putting aside the money which might help them go through with the least difficulty, those periods of trial and want which, unfortunately, are much too often experienced by the mass of wage-earners. All those social laws will help them and the old age pension will make them secure from destitution when they are old.
I associate myself with the remarks uttered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in his talk of November 13 last. I quote:
No fear is more tyrannical than that of want in one's old age. The government's policy is intended to guarantee that Canadians, when they advance in age, may count upon independence and a decent standard of living and not upon charity and the old people's home.
During the last session, the government decided to lower to sixty-five years the age at which a person may be eligible for the old age pension. It has also increased the amount of the monthly pension paid old age pensioners, thus increasing the measure of security which this legislation provides. It is an annuity which will guarantee them comfort and independence when they reach the twilight of life.
Unavoidably, it was necessary to increase taxes, but I believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) deserves congratulations for having distributed so equitably the taxes required to grant those additional benefits to our senior citizens.
Since I am dealing with the Department of Finance, I deem it my duty to present a few suggestions which I believe should be adopted.
It has seemed advisable to impose an excise tax on various articles, the so-called luxury goods, like radios, washing machines, refrigerators, etc. A very burdensome tax has been added also to the price of tobacco.
I understand that very heavy sacrifices are made necessary by the extraordinarily high cost of rearmament. All the parties recognize how imperative it is to establish our defence on a sound basis. However, some members of the opposition seem to think that we are not doing enough in that connection.

If we decided to follow their suggestions, I wonder how many millions we would have to add to our national revenue* millions which would have to be levied by taxation!
Those who blame the government for not doing more in connection with our defence situation and recruiting for the various armed services take great care not to suggest some beautiful source where we might obtain such huge additional amounts as would be involved.
While I approve the government's policy as far as the amounts allotted to our defence production are concerned I think that there should be a better distribution of the taxes necessary to meet the emergency.
Reverting to the increased excise tax on the articles I have already mentioned, I wonder who, after due consideration, could seriously claim that an electric washing machine or refrigerator, or even a radio, are luxuries.
Are there some who would like us to go backward by raising the price of washing machines through taxation to such a prohibitive level that only well-to-do people could buy them while those who are not as fortunate would have to do without them?
Certainly, no one would like to go back to the times when the housewife was practically a slave and forced to labour hard without the help of those household machines and appliances which progress has placed at her disposal in the last fifty years.
It is imperative that we should contribute to the comfort and the well-being of the housewife; one of the best means to help her is to facilitate the purchase of all the appliances necessary for this purpose. It is not by increasing taxes and curtailing instalment buying facilities that we will reach this end.
Thus, electrical refrigerators contribute to the well-being to which everyone has the right to look forward to.
Some may claim that people can always use an ordinary ice-box, the cost of which is within everyone's reach. Even if this is true, one may wonder whether it is very much more economical to use natural ice than an electric refrigerator. Have we figured out the enormous quantities of food that are saved through the modern methods of electric refrigeration? I should add that this invention and the health conditions it creates help

to raise the health standards of the nation. No, gentlemen, an electric refrigerator at a reasonable price is not a luxury; it has become a necessity.
And what about -a radio? Who could do without one today?
Of course, it isi not necessary that we should have the most expensive models.
I could readily understand a luxury tax on appliances or machines which would truly be luxury items selling at a very high price. But I cannot see that it is proper to tax all these appliances at the same rate, regardless of cost.
I speak, I am sure, for those I represent when I ask the government to reconsider its decision and to secure elsewhere the revenue it requires.
As I suggested in a previous speech in the house, could we not, for instance, tax profits derived from the sale of businesses, properties or from financial operations on the stock market or elsewhere?
Wage-earners' incomes are taxed at the source, via salary deductions, while hundreds, indeed. thousandis, of people do not pay anything on enormous profits made in financial operations and which, for all intents and purposes, are truly income acquired during the year.
I also humbly submit that the tax on cigarettes and tobacco should be greatly reduced.
All members of the house know that, more than ever before, tobacco is being smuggled into this country.
This is largely due to the excessively high price of cigarettes, because of the heavy taxation on that commodity.
There was a time when a man could save by rolling his own, but nowadays, if you take into account the tax on processed tobacco, the so-called home-made cigarette becomes a near luxury, compared to what it cost before the tax increase.
And what about pipe tobacco, cut or leaf? Undoubtedly this was the cheapest method open to the smoker who wished to indulge his taste. Nevertheless a way was found to increase its price to what I consider to be an exaggerated extent.
Smuggling, which has resulted from such overcharging, has created ruinous competition for local producers, so much so that
The Address-Mr. Dupuis they are about to lay off hundreds of employees.
Let there be no mistake about it. There has been no drop in the amount of tobacco consumed, but thousands of people have taken means to buy cigarettes at a price which is just half the price paid in Canada.
It is my hope that in view of the requests coming in from all sides and to prevent our fellow countrymen from turning more and more into lawbreakers, the government will reconsider their position and that not only will they remove the tax increase levied in the last budget but that they will even reduce the rate levied previously.
My remarks are not inspired by the desire to oppose the government nor even to embarrass them. My sole purpose is to draw the attention of our leaders to a deplorable state of affairs, which should be corrected at once.
However, the necessary steps should be taken to prevent manufacturers from benefiting from this action on the part of the government, by increasing the price of their products.
I remember, and I have already said so here, that the manufacturers of soft drinks asked for repeal of the tax on their products, and that this request was granted.
Their main argument was that the five cent price was the popular price and that the extra cent to be paid by the consumer was, in short, but a nuisance tax, as they called this impost.
A little later, the tax was removed, the price of soft drinks was raised to six cents and, a short time afterwards, to seven cents.
Perhaps manufacturing costs, wage increases or higher sales commissions are the cause of such an increase but nothing has proven that such price increase has not entirely benefited soft drink manufacturers.
It was the same with chocolate bars. The tax on this confection was also abolished and immediately after the price was brought up to seven cents, although by this time bars were smaller.
Even if such increase is justifiable for the reasons just given, the fact remains that we might fear that the cigarette manufacturers would raise their prices also, solely to their own benefit.
I therefore suggest that a parliamentary committee be set up to authorize, if need be, the increase of the sales price in general.
1340	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
Now I wish to discuss a matter which 1 have already mentioned in the house, namely, civil service salaries and the increase made necessary by the steady rise in the cost of living.
I understand that those good public servants will shortly receive a substantial increase. Far be it from me to claim credit for it, but I am happy to find that the government has willingly granted the numerous requests similar to mine which they have received from various quarters.
Now this commendable step should, however, be completed by a reclassification of the various positions, in order to place on the same footing, in regard to salaries, all those who perform work similar to that of other employees and who receive less than their colleagues whose duties do not require any more knowledge or effort.
The wages paid to the unskilled workers, those we call the day-labourers, should be checked in all departments in order to find out if they are in keeping with the work required from the men and with the cost of living.
Of course the wages paid to this class of workers must correspond to those paid for similar work in industry and trade. Still I maintain it would not be superfluous to make a survey in this regard in order to correct any shortcomings if not injustices, quite unintentional, I dare say, affecting certain workers.
I am pleased to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) for the increase of thirteen cents an hour granted to the women looking after the cleaning and the maintenance of government offices. This action does them honour and I have been asked to extend to these two distinguished members of the government the most sincere thanks of the people concerned.
I also express the wish that the pension paid to veterans of both wars will be increased, because like everyone else they are suffering from constantly rising prices.
We all deplore the high cost of living, which is the great problem of all those who look after a family budget. In that connection, I wish to repeat what I said previously.
In my opinion, we cannot freeze prices at their present high level and salaries at the low level now paid to a very large number of people.
Before thinking of price and wage controls, we should provide a decent salary to the


small wage-earners, unskilled workers, and office workers who today are not earning enough to cope with the present high cost of living and must resort to work outside their regular employment in order to make both ends meet. Due to inadequate incomes, several families have to go without some essential commodities. We should first find a solution to that problem before speaking of controlling prices and freezing wages.
Recently, representatives from all labour unions have asked that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended in order to reduce the number of days that must elapse between the time the worker loses his job and the time he begins to receive his unemployment benefits.
It seems to me that the reserves accumulated by the commission are sufficiently large to allow such liberalities. In any event, I do hope that the government will see its way clear to afford this timely suggestion the attention it deserves.
Before concluding these remarks I once again call the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to the appropriateness of doing away with toll charges on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. The construction costs of the latter structure have been written off long ago. As for the former, it is true $19,000,000 still remains to be paid on it, but that is no reason to impose an additional indirect tax on the residents of Montreal and the adjoining district who use this route every day.
Why not discuss it with provincial and municipal authorities with a view to reaching a sensible arrangement in so far as the writing off of this debt and maintenance costs are concerned?
Such an arrangement would be likely to do justice to all the people of our province, since they all have to use this bridge. It should be noted that this means of communication serves tourists from all parts of the country and that they too must pay this indirect tax. But there are not many of them and the greater part of the burden must be borne by the people of Montreal and vicinity.
I intend to move a motion, at the next session, to request the abolition of toll charges on those bridges. If the government cannot grant my request, they might at least be able to abolish the price charged passengers in cars.

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
I hope the government will grant the many requests they have received concerning this discriminatory charge, since I believe these are the only two toll bridges in the country.
In closing I wish to assure the government that any remarks I made were made in good faith, because I thought it was my duty to make them and because I thought I was faithfully carrying out my mandate by expressing those views as frankly as I could. Despite my remarks and those few suggestions which I would like to see carried out, I wish to assure the government of my full support.
To be sure, conditions could be better than they are now; however, I do not think this country can be led by better men than we have now, or men more anxious to give their best to ensure the greatest measure of welfare to our fellow countrymen under the difficult conditions that now exist throughout the world.
I shall therefore vote for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, against the amendment and against the amendment to the amendment, because they offer no solution to present-day problems and merely amount to a motion of non-confidence in the best government our country ever had. Such a motion I could never support with my vote.
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, before turning to the subject on which I wish to detain the house for only a few moments I should like to make one or two comments on the speech of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), to which I listened with keen interest. I refer particularly to what he said about the desirability of debates in the house on foreign affairs being more actively participated in, and I agree fully with him. He of course has had the advantage of being abroad this summer, and was therefore able to speak about these matters with a certainty of touch which the rest of us could hardly have. Nevertheless we are an international power now, and it seems to me the time has long since passed when we should get rid of what seems to have been almost a taboo on the subject of foreign affairs. I do hope that what has been said tonight by the hon. member for Bellechasse will bear fruit.
I was of course also delighted with another statement he made in answer to a question from one of my colleagues as to why he 94699-861
supported the government. He said, and I hoped he said it sadly, "Oh, that would take a long time to explain". I took great comfort from that, and I hope not without justification.
My only excuse for rising a second time in the debate, even to speak for only a few moments, is a statement made in the house the other day which it seems to me was entirely wide of the mark and completely removed from reality. I should like to take a few moments of the time of the house to bring it back to what I, at any rate, consider to be a realistic view of the situation. I refer to the remark made the other day by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair), in answer to a question as to whether the Bank of Canada supported Dominion of Canada bonds. He sought to suggest that, really, the Bank of Canada had no responsibility. I sympathized with him, because I thought he was given the rather ungrateful task of trying to explain something which I think cannot be explained, because I do not think it is a fact. He practised hairsplitting and, indeed, evasiveness, which I do not think is characteristic of him but which, nevertheless, I suggest was characteristic of the statement he made the other day.
I should like to point out in passing that this attitude of running away from responsibility, trying to pretend that the bank had nothing to do with this, is a change-oh, such a change-from the attitude of some years ago, when we were treated to any number of boasts as to what the bank was doing, how it controlled this and that, how it knew all the answers, and so on, and so on. Indeed, I propose to read a little later a statement by no less a person than Mr. Ilsley, to show that even the careful Mr. Ilsley was led a pretty long way toward saying that they had the answers, and that it was now really possible to control all kinds of things, which they have since learned cannot be controlled.
I should like to point out that I am not questioning the importance of these powers; far from it. What I am questioning is this apparent desire to run away from the fact and to treat the house to statements which I think do very little credit to its intelligence, and which we should not be asked to accept.
I should like first of all to read a short statement from the Financial Post of November 24, which sets out what is I am sure the unquestioned belief of the ordinary man of business, in the financial world, as to what


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like tonight to take up a number of things which are of interest to the people of my constituency. The world has grown so small that world affairs come home to us very closely. I suppose that if my constituents had the choice of anything kind Providence might bestow upon them they would ask for the establishment of world peace under the rule of law. That granted we could then proceed toward the solution of other problems.
The next great problem facing the world today is the feeding of its population, which is increasing at an amazing rate. In spite of our vaunted agricultural technique our food production is not nearly keeping up with world demands for food. The distribution of wealth in the form of consumer goods is on an uncertain and haphazard basis. We on this continent are fortunate in being possessed of almost limitless resources, but we cannot expect to sit tight forever on an island of plenty, an island of great natural resources, when surrounded by the envious and hungry eyes of nations which are less fortunate than ourselves. Even in this country we have our distribution problem. The people of Canada are being mulcted by inflation and high prices going still higher. Throughout the years the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has tried to soothe us with the comforting thought that when consumer goods became more plentiful prices would level off. But is there anyone within the sound of my voice who is now so naive as to think that the system of supply and demand operates freely? It is true that there is an abundance of goods upon our shelves. Our consumer supplies are, I think, almost greater than we can use. There is an abundance of goods which one of these days is likely to prove an embarrassment to us as it has before to our topsy-turvy and haphazard economic system. Under a system in which the law of supply and demand was in free operation, prices would have fallen long ago.
The much vaunted free competition is conspicuous by its absence, and when goods become plentiful they do not necessarily go

The Address-Mr. Knight down in price. The manufacturer simply shuts down his factory and throws his employees upon the tender mercies of unemployment insurance until once more the need for supplies makes people willing to pay the same if not a higher price for the same goods. Once again we have proven our ability to produce far more than the needs of our own population. Consumer goods are plentiful, but they are not getting into the hands of the consumers. This tremendous production of consumer goods goes on in spite of the demand created by defence production and the transfer of men and machinery formerly used in the production of consumer goods to the production of defence goods. Is it any wonder that certain groups of businessmen are concerned as to what is going to happen if peace is declared? Is it any wonder that the New York stock exchange slumps to the degree that Korean settlement becomes likely? I ask hon. members if that is not a tacit admission that our economy only works smoothly during a war period or when war is threatening. Whether or not it is a sign that business interests believe there is now a better chance of peace than formerly, our economy is certainly not functioning too well in some quarters.
We hope that the optimism expressed today about a cease-fire in Korea is justified. If a cease-fire has been agreed upon; if a geographical line has been decided upon; if the date for such a cease-fire has been set, then I hope Canada will bring her influence to bear upon her allies to bring their influence to bear upon their foes to the end that in the meantime there may be no more killing and unnecessary slaughter before the armistice. A soldier may think the world well lost if he is fighting in a just and necessary cause, and the parents of our troops may even agree, but it seems to me a pity that a soldier should lose his life under circumstances such as I have described, in what must be for that time at least a pseudo battle which can decide nothing. I speak with some feeling on this matter because I was intimately connected with a family who suffered an unfortunate occurrence about the end of world war I. When the date of the armistice was announced as November 11 the family met together to celebrate in a quiet way the fact, as they thought, that their son would now be coming home unscathed; but the boy was instantly killed one night in a wheat field near Cambrai just a day or two before November 11, the date upon which the armistice actually went into effect. The yellow telegram arrived a day or two later. A life was unnecessarily lost which could have been


spared for Canada, a life which Canada and the parents of the boy could ill afford to lose.
I was saying that our economy is not functioning too well in some quarters. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) pointed out to the house the other day the seriousness of the unemployment situation in Toronto. Vancouver too is having its unemployment problem and is concerned lest its mild climate may attract more jobless people to that part of the country. I have here the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 21, 1951, in which there is a Canadian Press dispatch to which I wish to refer. It contains a statement by Mayor Fred Hume of Vancouver to his council. The article reads in part:
"Things are getting tough in Vancouver, no fooling." Mayor Fred Hume told council. "I have as many as ten people in every day looking for work and I don't know where to send them." On October 25 there were 12,604 persons registered with the national employment service in Vancouver and only 1,025 unfilled jobs.
Vancouver is warning unemployed people to stay away, and with some reason. I have here an article from the Montreal Gazette of November 21 which refers to social service workers as saying:
We've been urging all the younger men to start hitch-hiking towards the coast ports before the weather gets any worse.
The same dispatch says that in Montreal 20,000 men and women are unemployed and that the number may climb to 30,000 by the end of this week. Soup kitchens have been opened, and in the words of the article, "transient shelters are filled to capacity each night". The article is accompanied by a picture of a line of men waiting for a free lunch, and winter is not with us yet. The article mentions the scarcity of cash as one of the reasons for unemployment. I am reminded of the Minister of Finance's definition of inflation: "Too much cash," he has said on numerous occasions in my hearing, "chasing too few goods." It is a definition which will interest but will not encourage able-bodied men who are out of work. They have no cash. Goods are plentiful, it is true, but so far as they are concerned they are plentiful only in the shop windows.
Let us look for a moment at the other side of the coin. Profits and dividends are at an all-time high. The minister is trying to see to it that we have not too much cash. Taxation has now reached the point in this country where it may in fact become inflationary. I should like to refer to the Montreal Gazette of November 24 which says that the revenue surplus soared to $604,700,000 for the first seven months of the fiscal year, with October showing an increase of $91,500,000

and revenues going up to $354,600,000. Here, if you like, is too much cash, but it is in the hands of the government and its minister. It is an embarrassment of cash, but this government forsooth has not enough money at this session to increase the pensions paid to burnt-out pensioners under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Under that act a single man only receives $40.41 per month, and that under a means test. He can only have $10.42 additional monthly income if he is not to be prejudiced in the receipt of even that pittance. The married man is perhaps in a worse position. He receives $70.83, and the ceiling on his total income is $91.66. Items counted as additional income under the means test are such things as disability pensions and the old age pension, if the recipient is eligible for either of them. Inflation is described as too much cash chasing too few goods. Here is a class that has not too much cash; the government has seen to that. In view of the cost of living the goods that can be purchased by this class are indeed few.
We have not heard so much in this House of Commons about the plight of the veteran's widow under the War Veterans Allowance Act, perhaps because the widows are fewer in number. They, too, should receive immediate consideration. The government has said that at the next session it will set up a veterans committee to consider these things. I appeal to the government to consider these matters at this present session. Just a small fraction of these accumulated and embarrassing millions to which I have referred would set right the great wrong which has been done to these underprivileged classes of society. The request made by the Canadian Legion on their behalf is not unreasonable, and should be granted now. The executive committee of Saskatoon branch No. 63 of the Canadian Legion has written to me about the matter. They have sent me a copy of a resolution which I shall put on the record. It reads:
Whereas those veterans whose sole or main income is an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act are suffering hardship due to the increasing high cost of living and,
Whereas the government of Canada has announced the situation will be referred to a veterans committee of the House of Commons in 1952 for consideration and recommendation;
And whereas the plight of many of these recipients of war veterans allowance is desperate now-
The word "now" is underlined.
Be it resolved that the government of Canada be urged to bring in a bill at the present session of the House of Commons, increasing basic rates of allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act so that such allowances will at least provide food, clothing and shelter for the recipient.
The Address-Mr. Knight
A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the food production of the world. We, and particularly those of us on this continent, have wasted our heritage. We have slashed our timber lands; we have lowered the water table; we have impoverished our soil; we have caused soil erosion, and all for the sake of immediate gains. We shall have to call a halt. If these acts of commission are reprehensible, no less reprehensible has been our neglect to supply available water to our parched lands that they may become more fruitful. This brings me, as one would suspect since I am a Saskatchewan man, to the question of the Saskatchewan river development project. A successful irrigation scheme would be of inestimable value to that part of the country. Possibly the greatest problem facing Saskatchewan is caused by the slow growth of her population. The mechanization of wheat farming, the increased acreage of the average farm, mean that less and less people are needed for the process of growing the great quantities of grain which we produce. Climatic conditions work against the establishment of mixed farming.
Oh, it is easy for the arm-chair farmers to say that the farmers could keep more cattle. Most of these arm-chair farmers do not realize the climatic conditions under which farmers work, particularly in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan. More and more farmers are living in the towns, and under today's conditions one cannot blame them. We need more mixed farming; we need more stock raising, more industry and, above all, we need more people. A partial solution at least would be to bring water to the lands which are often parched for the lack of it. Thus it is that, as I have often done before, I urge the government to proceed forthwith with the great irrigation project that is planned. Government speakers, and in particular the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), have spoken generally in favour of this scheme. They have helped to create a public demand for it, but as yet they have done little in a practical sense to bring the plan to fruition
This is not a political thing. It should not be looked upon from a partisan viewpoint, although political capital has been made of it. Last summer I attended a great meeting of farmers held at Outlook, Saskatchewan. These people were in earnest. They want action, and they want it soon. I had hoped that something would have been done before now. The minister's speeches before the last two federal elections seemed to give us some assurance of that. In February of 1949 I made a speech on this subject. I admit
134S

The Address-Mr. Knight
that on that date I was convinced something was going to be done soon, because on that occasion I said:
Irrespective of what party is in power-
That is after the 1949 election.
-I think something will be done. If the project is sound from an engineering point of view, this government is to be censured for not carrying out its promises.
That was three long years ago. After the 1949 election we again had high hopes, but the minister hedged a bit. He said the province of Saskatchewan would have to put up its share of the money. The province gave its assurance as to that, and we were then told that nothing could be done without agreement between the three provinces concerned as to the water distribution. Then there was to be a delay for the final inspection by a prominent engineer. Although the minister was questioned at that time as to the name of the prominent engineer, we were never able to find out. The matter was then handed over to a commission of three experts who are now studying it, and we believe their decision will be favourable. I do not believe it could be anything but favourable. If that is so, then I urge the government to proceed forthwith, even before the next election. I am concerned with the benefit this project will bring to the country more than I am concerned with who gets credit for bringing it about. The completion of this scheme would benefit not only our province; it would bring work to a great many people. It would increase the population of Saskatchewan; it would put a greater number of people on smaller farms, and it would mean a new type of farmer. It would encourage diversification in farming and the breeding of livestock, and would conceivably promote other industries such as the finishing of beef cattle and the production of beet sugar. It would mean more business for the towns, and would stabilize the farm economy of the province. It would affect the nation as a whole. Let us proceed with it.
Much has been said at this session of the current difficulties of the prairie wheat farmers. We hope something will be done to help them in their temporary trouble due to the lack of storage space and the lack of transportation. We hope they will be assisted financially until their crops can be delivered in the ordinary way. The demands for better transportation have perhaps embarrassed the government and the railways. It occurs to me that embarrassment might have been very much greater if the crop had been taken off, as it usually is, in two or three weeks of fine sunny weather. In view of the apparent lack
fMr. Knight.]

of preparation for the movement of this year's crop, the fact that most of it was not ready as quickly as usual has been something of a face saver, in my opinion, for this government and for the transportation companies. The storage of grain, of course, is one of the difficulties this year, and I am going to suggest to the government that the storage space at the port of Churchill might well be enlarged. The present capacity of the elevator up there is 2,500,000 bushels. If there were greater storage facilities, greater use of the Hudson bay route would be encouraged. That in turn would be an advantage to the growers in that shipping area; it would also be an advantage to my own city and to other northern towns.
There is another consideration. I was reading tonight in my home paper that the grain people are estimating that in the northern part of Saskatchewan only about 20 per cent of the wheat that is being shipped is classified as dry; it is damp or tough. The Churchill elevator is equipped with splendid drying facilities which in any wet harvest year, such as this one, could be used to tremendous advantage. If more storage space were available, more wheat could be prepared there for export through the use of even the present drying facilities which throughout the years have been comparatively idle. I think last year was the first in which any substantial use was made of those facilities. It was amazing to me to learn the amount of grain that could be dried there in twenty-four hours' time. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has received in this regard at least one representation that I know about. That was from the council of farm unions of the prairie provinces. I have twice questioned him about it, and in spite of his rather discouraging reply today we hope that the government will give it earnest consideration.
I have one more subject to bring before this house at this time. For some time we who live in Saskatchewan have felt that a production unit of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be established in that province. There are three provinces in Canada where the C.B.C. has not set up such a unit. Before deciding to bring this matter before the house I canvassed the opinions of the premier of Saskatchewan, the president of the farmers' union in Saskatchewan and the president of the Saskatoon federated co-operative, and I have received unanimous endor-sation of the idea. I have in my hand letters from those gentlemen in regard to the matter.
As things are now it is difficult to arrange to have people from our province take part in such programs as "Citizens' Forum",

"Critically Speaking" and other programs which ought to reflect the thinking and actions of people all over Canada, not just people from a group of provinces. Were there administrative offices in Saskatchewan, or were there a production unit there, C.B.C. personnel would have a better opportunity to become acquainted personally with the leaders in the various organizations in that province, with speakers, musicians, actors and artists of all kinds. There would be a tremendous stimulus to local talent which might be used on the air; and there is a great deal of talent in that province. I noticed tonight that in Edmonton at a national contest in poetry put on some time ago by the Canadian authors' association, several of the prize winners were young Saskatchewan people.
In this interchange of correspondence between Premier Douglas and the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. there is a letter from Mr. Dunton to the premier in which he says:
We have been aware for a long time of the desirability of having a C.B.C. production unit in Saskatchewan. I hope the new financial arrangements for the corporation will make it possible in the not too distant future.
Then I skip a line or two and quote again:
I can assure you, however, that a production centre for Saskatchewan is very much in mind.
That is indeed good news; and I express the hope that, when the necessary funds are available, this project will be one of the first to be carried out. I urge, of course-and it is natural perhaps that I should do so, for I am prejudiced-that the natural place for such a unit is the city of Saskatoon. I shall not weary the house by cataloguing its natural beauty and its many advantages, except to say this, and it is revelant to the subject under consideration. As the site of the provincial university it is the educational centre of the province; it has become recognized as the city in which most Saskatchewan organizations hold their conventions; and geographically it is at the centre of the large populated area of Saskatchewan. It will be of tremendous advantage to the city, to the province and to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself if there is established at that point a production centre such as we visualize.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I recapitulate the earlier part of my speech by again drawing to the attention of the government the desire of our people for the early construction of the Saskatchewan dam, the need for greater storage facilities for grain at the port of Churchill, the desperate need of the burnt-out veterans and veterans' widows for increases in their pensions, and 94699-87
The Address-Mr. A. Gauthier the reponsibility of this government to alleviate somehow the uneasiness caused in Canada by inflation, over-taxation and the high cost of living.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the legislation introduced during this session and of the urgency of the problems which I have to submit to the government, I would be shirking my responsibilities if I did not take part in this debate.
I wish to associate myself with those who have preceded me in order to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons). Their electors should be proud of them. I have listened with particular interest to the speech of the member for Beauharnois and I have admired the manner in which he dealt with national unity. Before concluding my remarks, I shall come back to a particular aspect of national unity.
Our country is developing rapidly and the constituency which I have the honour to represent, Lake St. John, is in the forefront of the industrial development.
For the past few months the Aluminum Company of Canada has been engaged in the development of two power stations on the Peribonka river and the extension of its aluminum plants at Isle Maligne. These works, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $100 million, create for the people of my constituency certain problems that appear difficult to solve. I am referring in particular to the housing problem. Some time ago, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) announced improvements to the federal law on housing for the benefit of the workers employed in defence industries.
Because aluminum is a metal used in the production of munitions of war, the Lake St. John district should be considered as an emergency district within the meaning of the act recently amended. I bring this point to the attention of the government. For my part, I am convinced this is the only way to face the situation and to solve, partially at least, this difficult and yet alarming problem, the housing problem. The need is particularly great at Saint-Joseph d'Alma, Naudville and l'lsle Maligne.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) announced, a few days ago, an increase in the basic rate of veterans' pensions. The steady increase in the cost of living had reduced the value of their original pension. They were fully justified in asking for an increase in their pension.

The Address-Mr. A. Gauthier
By granting the requests of the Canadian Legion and by carrying out our recommendations, the government did justice to the veterans of the two world wars and carried forward the social security program it is trying to extend even further to all classes of Canadians. This brings me to the most important social security legislation ever passed by a Canadian parliament since confederation-I mean the act providing for old age security.
Personally, I am delighted to be a member of the parliament that passed that legislation and I take pride in supporting the government that brought it forward.
In this way, the federal government will be contributing half the cost of pensions for those aged 65 to 70 and will assume the entire cost of paying a universal pension of $40 per month to people aged 70 and over. As stated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), we can all be proud of the fact that Canada is the first country to pay a universal pension without a means test.
In two previous speeches in this house I had the honour to ask that this social security be afforded the old people of my constituency. I am glad that this is at last an accomplished fact.
The mover of the address in reply spoke of national unity. This national unity, to my mind, would be far better served if the Department of National Defence were to erect a military college in the province of Quebec. This would make it easier for our young men to make a career of army life.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) seems to be very favourably disposed with regard to the requests of French-speaking Canadians. I am confident therefore he will give our recruits the same advantages given those of other provinces. The establishment of a military college in my province would remove an injustice and the source of many grievances. National unity would be strengthened and we would be better prepared to play our part in the international field.
It is comforting to see the growing importance Canada is assuming among the nations of the world. As stated a few days ago by a Quebec newspaper, L'Action Catholique, one feels something has changed. Yes, many things have changed. Canadianism has become a more and more compelling force, and our country, united within by a common patriotism and by common feelings, is beginning to assert its sovereignty abroad.
This is due to the wisdom of its government and, in particular, to the broad-mindedness and the ability of the great statesman who presides over its destinies.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I add that in my opinion national unity would be greatly strengthened if every Canadian from coast to coast could fly the same typically Canadian flag.
(Text):


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much of the time of the house tonight, but there are two or three matters I should like to mention. First, I want to support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). One of the matters I want to deal with is that of the reserve army and our railways. The reserve army enjoys a high priority as far as military goods and supplies are concerned. It is on the reserve army that we can draw to maintain our forces in other parts of the world. On good authority I understand that while many small firms, private industries and companies aid this effort by allowing their employees to take time off to assist in the development of the reserve army, the railways in some instances are discouraging their men from participating in those activities. Therefore I would suggest that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence get together on this so they will not be pulling one against the other at a time when we need all the men we can possibly get to participate in our defence activities.
When I took part in the throne speech some three weeks ago I mentioned the amounts of money that were available for stemming the tide of communism and for the rehabilitation of Europe and other lands. After the debacle of Iran and the oil negotiations there we find that the premier comes to America and we pat him on the back and say: "You are a good boy." He is lent $9 million from the international monetary fund and told; "You have been a bad boy; go home and sin no more." That seems to me to be a very nice way of rewarding a certain amount of international brigandage.
Then we were more or less shocked, then reassured, and today again alarmed about the developments in Europe and the alleged commitment of Canadian funds for the building of airports and barracks in Europe. Whether it is right or wrong I am not going to say, but I want to point out first that we have all these hundreds of millions of dollars to do these things, yet our young people in Canada are not able to establish themselves on the land or in business. We have money to pour out all over Europe and Asia for these questionable purposes, and the defence of Europe. With all the people they

have available there I should think they could do some of the work themselves. If we are to supply the men, the planes and the guns to help defend Europe, surely one of the contributions they could make would be to build the airports, the airfields and the barracks in which they are to live.
I noticed in a newspaper article on the recent visit of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to Rome, his participation in the deliberations of the food and agriculture organization there, and his announcement that he was afraid the agricultural production of the world, and of Canada in particular, was likely to decrease. Part of the reason for that is inflation, and part of it can be laid on the doorstep of the government. We have long since reached the point where we are pricing ourselves out of European markets. They can no longer buy our goods.
Then there was an announcement in the paper a day or two ago that food supplies in the United Kingdom are lower than they were at the height of the submarine menace during the war. We find ourselves short of markets for some fruits and fruit products, yet in Great Britain and elsewhere they are not able to buy them.
I wanted to say that I concur heartily in the views expressed by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) that the war veterans allowance should have been taken care of at this session. I agree, too, with the suggestion he made that if the measure is introduced at the next session it should be made retroactive. I must say that I receive great numbers of letters from men who are receiving war veterans allowances, telling me of their plight in trying to make ends meet on this inadequate allowance.
In the news broadcast at eight o'clock in the morning, November 14, it was reported that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in reply to an inquiry regarding Great Britain's worsening monetary and trade situation, had said that there was a good market in Great Britain for Canadian goods. In view of the serious situation in that country, I must say he certainly was optimistic.
There are two further items I wish to bring to the attention of the house. One is a paragraph in a letter over the signature of the clerk of the city of London with regard to proof of age for old age pensioners. He points out that the council of London passed a resolution stating in part:
Therefore be it resolved that the dominion and provincial governments be respectfully urged to establish, in county seats and in all cities, bureaux to enable applicants for old age pensions to present evidence for the purpose of establishing date of 94699-871
The Address-Mr. H. O. White birth, and that consideration be given to the advisability of appointing a local authority, such as a city or county clerk or city or county welfare administrator, with the powers of a commissioner for the issuance and certification of proof of age documents, and further, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the local members, and to the Ontario municipal association, with the request for their support.
I believe there is considerable merit in that resolution, and I hope the government will give it serious consideration.
Then I have in my hand a chart issued by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, showing the set-up of that department. If all departments of government would issue these in loose-leaf form so they could be brought up to date from time to time, they would be most helpful to members of the house when they wish to get in touch with various individuals in departments, as they must do from time to time.
On motion of Mr. Poulin the debate was adjourned.



REPORTED ARRANGEMENTS FOR A CEASE-FIRE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the unanimous consent of the house, I should like to revert to motions so that I may discharge a promise I made to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to communicate to the house, as soon as I got it, any information obtained from the unified command of- the United Nations with respect to cease-fire negotiations in Korea.
The information I have received is that the sub-delegations of the United Nations and enemy delegations meeting at Panmunjom have agreed on the line of contact between the United Nations and enemy forces for the 145 miles across the peninsula of Korea, and have thereby established the description of a neutral buffer zone which would extend two kilometers in depth from this contact line on either side, and from which both sides will withdraw if an armistice is signed within thirty days. It was expected when this dispatch was sent to us that at a meeting which was to take place at Panmunjom at eleven o'clock Tuesday, their time, which corresponds with nine o'clock p.m. eastern standard time today, the full delegations would approve the findings of the subdelegations.
However, before a cease-fire can take effect it will be necessary for the full delegations to concur on arrangements for inspection to ensure that the truce is being observed, and to care for the exchange of prisoners of war. There is a third remaining outstanding item on "recommendations to the governments

Korea
concerned on both sides", which has not yet been explored. And it is only when agreement on all three of these outstanding points has been reached that it will be possible for a cease-fire to take official effect.
The sub-delegations were to meet at eight o'clock eastern standard time to complete their report for the full delegations of the two sides. The full delegations are probably in session at the present time. They were called to meet at what would correspond to nine o'clock eastern standard time today; and it is assumed that they are now in conference dealing with this line of demarcation which has been set out on the plans, and with the explanatory notes.
It was expected that they would ratify this line of demarcation. The arrangement with respect to it signed on November 23 provided that when the cease-fire became operative, each side would withdraw two kilometers in depth from this line of demarcation, and that that would be the line of demarcation if the other items were agreed upon within thirty days from the ratification of the line of demarcation.
If they did not agree within thirty days they would nevertheless continue their negotiation of these other points; and when they had arrived at agreement upon them, the sub-delegations would revise the line of demarcation in conformity with what might then be the point of contact between the opposing forces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any comment to make on another point made this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, namely as to the possibility of there being a minimum of actual warfare during the period between now and the effective date of the proposed truce?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is nothing in the dispatches bearing upon that. That would
evidently be something that would be determined in the field by the local commanders of the opposing forces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And may I ask one further question. The Prime Minister referred to a third subject, namely outstanding matters of concern to the various governments. Is Canada one of the governments concerned, in view of our participation? If so, does the Prime Minister know what the matters are?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: There is a third remaining outstanding item on "recommendations to the governments concerned on both sides." I assume that the recommendations would be made through the unified command to all the governments having forces participating in the actions of the United Nations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So we are one of those governments concerned?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: It is my understanding that we are one of those governments concerned to whom this cease-fire committee would be making recommendations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will move second reading of Bill No. 25, to provide for the financial administration of the government of Canada, the audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations. This bill is being referred to the committee on public accounts. Next we will consider railway legislation, and as the first item the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport, No. 8 on today's order paper; and three bills reported from the committee: Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act; Bill No. 6, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933 and Bill No. 7, to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act. If we have time we would proceed with Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 27, 1951